Print article
Authors
Authors
A new phase of Covid-related litigation is emerging in the higher education sector following the recent settlement of claims brought by more than 5,000 students against University College London (UCL). Shortly after the settlement was announced, news reports indicated that claimant law firms had issued pre-action letters of claim to a significant number of other universities across the UK.
The UCL student claims
In Hamon & Others v University College London, the claimants, all former or current UCL students, alleged that the university failed to provide in-person tuition and full campus access during periods affected by industrial action and Covid-19 restrictions. They argued that they had paid fees on the basis of receiving an in-person educational experience, and sought damages reflecting the difference between the education they said they were promised and what they received, as well as damages for distress and disappointment.
UCL defended the claims on several grounds. It argued that the student contracts did not impose an absolute obligation to provide in-person or campus-based teaching; that its contractual terms permitted the university to modify the way it delivered teaching during industrial action or the pandemic; and that an estoppel issue arose in relation to students who commenced their studies after the pandemic began and were therefore aware, or ought to have been aware, that the way courses were taught would be affected by the pandemic and restrictions introduced by UK public health authorities.
A trial of nine test cases had been due to commence in February 2026. Shortly beforehand, the proceedings settled, with press reports suggesting UCL had agreed to pay students around £21 million as part of the settlement.
Following the settlement, claimant firms announced that they had written to 36 other universities and higher education institutions on behalf of groups of students or former students advancing allegations similar to those in the UCL litigation. Court proceedings may be commenced shortly to avoid limitation difficulties: breach of contract claims are usually subject to a six-year limitation period, meaning that claims relating to decisions and actions taken in early 2020 may soon become time-barred.
Case management issues raised by the student claims
The UCL litigation highlights important issues concerning the management of large-scale consumer claims.
In a July 2023 judgment handed down in the UCL litigation (neutral citation number: [2023] EWHC 1812 (KB)), the Court expressed concern that many claimants may not have understood their obligation to provide verified, claimant-specific information supported by a statement of truth, including dates of online teaching, periods of restricted access to facilities, and the specific adverse effects on research and practical learning. The Court’s observations may have wider implications for the management and viability of similar claims.
The Court also rejected the claimants’ application for a Group Litigation Order (GLO) (neutral citation number: [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB)). Although it accepted that the claims raised common issues of fact and law, namely that all claimants contracted on UCL’s standard contractual terms and all claims will involve the interpretation of those terms, and accepted that the threshold requirements for a GLO had been made out, it preferred the use of test cases. In doing so, the Court noted that the assessment of liability and damages would ultimately depend on the circumstances of each individual student. These claimant-specific circumstances include matters such as their programme of study, year of enrolment, modules taken, and domicile. These issues, the Court held, could not be resolved through generic GLO issues alone.
Given the arguments raised in the UCL case about the individualised nature of liability and loss, the approach to future student group claims may be shaped by more recent case law on the management of large consumer claims.
In Abernethy & Ors v Barclays Bank UK Plc & Ors [2025] EWCC 1, the Court was faced with a large cohort of PPI claimants who had been grouped together on a single “omnibus” claim form. The Court rejected this approach, holding that the claims could not be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. In particular, the judge emphasised the absence of any adequate analysis identifying common issues or showing how individual differences would be managed.
The High Court adopted a different approach in Angel & Ors v Black Horse Ltd [2025] EWHC 490 (KB), which concerned claims brought against several motor finance companies. In Angel, the claimants successfully appealed a decision at first instance which had ordered that the claims be severed and proceed individually. The High Court noted that “[t]he decision which the [claimants] really challenge e is the Judge’s determination of the insignificance or limited effect which decisions on the broad common issues in lead cases would likely have had on the following cases“. In response, the Court considered that the approach of the first instance judge “ignored the flexible way in which an omnibus claim form can properly be handed going forwards“, and that the decision was wrong because “it did not take into account the early stage of the claims and the likely future range if more precise common issues“. The High Court’s decision in Angel is now itself subject to a pending appeal, which the Court of Appeal is due to hear in April 2026. Depending on the Court of Appeal’s decision, we may see greater clarity around when collective procedures such as test cases, consolidation, or GLOs are appropriate, and when they are not.
For universities facing claims from students, the combined effect of Abernethy, Angel and the case-management decisions in the UCL litigation suggests that the courts will continue to scrutinise claimant‑led group structures carefully.
How we can help
Our Commercial & Regulatory Disputes team has significant experience acting in Covid‑19 business interruption litigation and complex group actions. We understand the procedural and evidential challenges involved in defending claims brought by large cohorts of claimants.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Jonathan Kitchin, Jennifer Morrissey or Edward Argles.