AN UNEMPLOYED Oxford University graduate is trying to sue the institution for £1m, blaming his career failures on 'inadequate' teaching.

Faiz Siddiqui is demanding damages 17 years after gaining a low 2:1 in modern history at Brasenose College.

The 39-year-old appeared at the High Court today to argue his case, claiming poor teaching in a particular module cost him the chance of a lucrative legal career.

He blamed the result on staff absence and also alleged medical information was not submitted to examiners by a tutor.

After graduating in 2000 he was employed in legal and tax roles, rather than fulfilling his ambition to become an international commercial lawyer, and he is now unemployed.

He claims his clinical depression and insomnia have been significantly exacerbated by his 'inexplicable failure'. 

His counsel Roger Mallalieu told the court that in 2000, Mr Siddiqui was a 'driven young man' determined to progress to a postgraduate course at an Ivy League university.

He said: "Whilst a 2:1 degree from Oxford might rightly seem like a tremendous achievement to most, it fell significantly short of Mr Siddiqui's expectations and was, to him, a huge disappointment.

"Mr Siddiqui has been badly let down by Oxford.

"He went there with high - perhaps extraordinarily high - expectations.

"He - and others - became the victim of poor teaching provision by the university in what was anticipated to be his favoured special subject.

"He, uniquely among his peers, was further disadvantaged by his personal tutor not conveying his knowledge of his illnesses to those responsible for making reasonable adjustments and for moderating his examinations."

Oxford University denies negligence and causation and says the case was brought 'massively' outside the legal time limit.

The seven-day hearing is concerned only with liability - with damages to be assessed later if Mr Siddiqui succeeds.

Julian Milford, representing Oxford University, told the court Mr Siddiqui had complained about insufficient resources but not the quality of the teaching, other than that it was 'a little bit dull'. 

He said Mr Siddiqui had received the same amount of teaching as he would have in any other year.

Mr Milford added: "Whatever teaching he received was sufficient to enable him to do well in his mock exams.

"Because he did not on the day was nothing to do with teaching at all."

He said Mr Siddiqui's academic performance had been 'one of promise laced with inconsistency'. 

Mr Milford said records made no reference to Mr Siddiqui's mental health during his final year and it was 'exceptionally improbable' that his tutor would not have advised him to gain a medical certificate prior to the exams.

Counsel said Mr Siddiqui's claim that he had lost out in his career was 'complete speculation and fanciful'.