A law student is suing Cambridge University for discrimination after he failed his PhD, claiming the decision denied him a lucrative job as a barrister.

Jacob Meagher did not pass his final ?viva voce? oral examination of his doctoral thesis, meaning he missed out on a place at a set of chambers, the High Court was told.

He is now seeking ?substantial damages? from the world-famous institution, arguing he should have been given an alternative way of achieving a PhD.

Details of Mr Meagher?s claim emerged in a court ruling which denied him permission to sue five members of Cambridge?s academic staff as well as the university itself.

Mr Justice Constable was told that the case was first brought in March 2024, almost a year after the result of his PhD.

Outlining the claim, the judge said: ?Mr Meagher? is a student at the University of Cambridge? undertaking a PhD in law. [He] did not successfully pass his final viva voce examination of his doctoral thesis.

?He issued a claim against the university, together with five named individuals employed by the university.

?The claim alleges disability discrimination and victimisation of various kinds under the Equality Act 2010, breach of contract and breach of common law duty of care.

?[He] sought damages, on the basis that the non-completion of his PhD led to the lost opportunity to take up a tenancy as a barrister at a particular set of chambers and that Mr Meagher has, as such, suffered a substantial loss of earnings.?

The court was told that Cambridge awards PhDs based on the completion of a 100,000-word thesis and an oral interview about it with two examiners ?appointed to assess his suitability?.

?On 26 April 2023, the outcome of Mr Meagher?s viva was delivered,? the judge continued.

?They declined to recommend the award of PhD but indicated that Mr Meagher should be allowed to revise his thesis and resubmit it.?

The court heard that Mr Meagher believes to have been discriminated against because of the university?s criteria, saying they placed him at a ?substantial disadvantage?.

This is because he is ?less able than other candidates of the same ability to produce a singular lengthy and multifaceted piece of work such as a PhD thesis?, the High Court was told.

According to Mr Meagher?s claim, Cambridge should have permitted him ?to have his suitability for award of a PhD to be assessed other than by way of a thesis?.

He said that the university?s Disability Resource Centre had recommended that at the viva examiners follow a set of guidelines to help him.

These included asking specific rather than general questions, using the active, rather than the passive, voice and allowing him pauses and breaks after questions to allow him to ?mentally retrieve the words or information that he needed in order to answer?.

The conduct of the viva caused ?significant damage? to Mr Meagher?s health, the court was told.

Following the initial 2024 hearing into the case, the law student?s application to sue the academic staff as well as the university was dismissed as were two aspects of his breach of contract claim.

Mr Meagher appealed against these rulings, which led to the latest judgment, in which Mr Justice Constable upheld the original decision regarding the individual faculty members but agreed to reinstate the breach of contract claim.

Mr Meagher, a qualified barrister since 2016, said: ?This case is not about particular adjustments; it concerns the conduct of an institution which is well known for its poor record when it comes to disability, dispute resolution, and student mental health support.

?Cambridge Faculty of Law, and the university should be world-leading when it comes to disability and dispute resolution, that this is not the case? raises important questions which the university has shown it does not wish to confront, this is to the detriment of all.?

He claims that although it was recommended he be allowed to re-submit his thesis a university committee then changed its mind and denied him the opportunity to do this.

Following this, Mr Meagher obtained an injunction preventing the university from re-examining him without considering what adjustments were necessary until the claim was resolved.

In addition to re-instating the breach of contract claim, the High Court also has permission for breach of Consumer Rights Act, and duty of care claims to be heard.

It is understood the case will now be heard at County Court. (The Telegraph)

Update news