Oxford graduate who sued college for after it 'failed to prepare her for exams' loses bid for £100,000 damages



Unsuccessful: Maria Abramova, 28, blamed her failure on the Oxford Institute of Legal Practice

An Oxford graduate who sued her law college after failing tough legal exams today lost her bid for £100,000 damages.

Maria Abramova, 28, claimed that the 'clearly negligent' tuition resulted in her failing to qualify as a solicitor and later caused her to fail the New York Bar Exam.

Miss Abramova, originally from Russia, claimed she found it 'psychologically difficult' to take legal exams and blamed Oxford Institute of Legal Practice (OXILP)college for her stalled legal career.

In a hearing at the High Court in London last month, Miss Abramova said: 'I recently decided not to retake that examination.

'This is because I have found it psychologically difficult to take legal examinations following my experiences on the course and subsequently at OXILP.'

The gifted linguist has managed to carve out a career as a paralegal with a UK firm specialising in aviation law but she told the hearing she still felt haunted by her failure to qualify as a solicitor because she never passed the Property Law and Practice (PLP) element of her nine-month long course.

She came to the UK 11 years ago when she was 17 to take A-levels and win entry to Oxford University.

Miss Abramova, who now lives in London, graduated from Oriel College, Oxford, in 2004 with a 2:1 in law then began a legal practitioner's course at the Oxford Institute of Legal Practice - at the time a college run jointly by Oxford University and Oxford Brookes University - aiming to become a solicitor.

Failed: Miss Abramova gained an undergraduate degree from Oriel College, Oxford, but she failed her New York Bar Exam

Her barrister, Oliver Hyams, claimed the law college failed Miss Abramova by neglecting to provide 'appropriate tuition in examination techniques' until she failed her first set of tests in May 2005.

The alleged lack of tuition was 'clearly negligent', argued Mr Hyams, who added: 'The defendant, if it was to comply with its part of the bargain between the parties, should have done something - and not just nothing - to assist the claimant with her examination techniques long before one month before the end of the course.

'Furthermore, if any re-sit was unsuccessful, then the relevant tutor's time was going to be dominated by the need to teach the following year's cohort of students.'

Although Miss Abramova re-took the examinations, and was successful in most components, the PLP element still eluded her and she finished her course still unqualified as a solicitor, the court heard.

Defence lawyers argued her lawsuit was groundless and that she was given every possible assistance throughout her course.

In a ruling that was handed down at Bristol Crown Court today, Mr Justice Burnett rejected Miss Abramova's claims about the standard of teaching at the college.

He said: 'The claimant was a witness who, in my judgement, was ready to blame anyone but herself for her misfortunes.

'She was inappropriately, and in my view without foundation, willing to make criticisms of those who taught her.

'I came away with the clear impression that when the claimant said that it did not occur to her that she might fail, she meant it.

'She still finds it difficult to comprehend why she failed.

'Furthermore, she continues to labour under the impression that when she was told by various members of staff that her answers were wrong or inadequate, that in fact the answers were right.

'The evidence from the staff that they gave the claimant every assistance when she asked for it was compelling.

'There were, in addition, times during her evidence where I concluded that the claimant was being less than frank.'

Concluding, Mr Justice Burnett said: 'I am unable to accept that the teaching in examination techniques was inadequate, still less negligent.

'The success of the overwhelming majority of students at OXILP is itself testimony to the quality of the teaching, reflected also in the overall assessment of outside observers.'

The judge added: 'The question formulated in argument was whether, had the claimant been taught as she suggests that she should have been, there was a realistic chance she might have passed the course, or would it be no more than speculative that she might.

'In my judgement the answer is that there was no realistic chance of the claimant passing the course.

'For whatever reason, the claimant did not display aptitude necessary to succeed on the Legal Practice Course.

'The breadth of her difficulties in passing various papers suggests a fundamental problem which the lack of success in the New York bar examinations confirms.

'Despite her academic ability, which is beyond doubt, the claimant's difficulties in achieving success in the Legal Practice Course were profound, indeed fatal to that success.'

Miss Abramova was not in court today for the ruling.

