Article by Jonathan Kirk KC, Lee Finch and Harry Hatwell.
These are testing times for universities. In addition to widely publicised budget deficits and conflict with teaching unions, they are now faced with the prospect of group litigation claims from former students arising from Covid-19 and strike related disruption. The first such claim, between approximately 5,000 former students, collectively represented by Student Group Claim, and University College London (‘UCL’) was scheduled for a four-week high court trial in late February 2026. However, just days before the trial was due to begin, it was announced that the parties had settled. Whilst the terms of the settlement are confidential, press reports put the overall settlement figure at £21m.[1]
There is an obvious incentive for those running such litigation to bring further claims and it looks like they will waste little time in doing so. The day that the settlement with UCL was announced, Student Group Claim announced that they had recruited over 230,000 former students with the intention of issuing claims against a further 36 universities.
Legal basis of the claims
Student Group Claim claims that online teaching provided during the pandemic cost universities less than the in-person experience which students were promised, and that those savings should go back to students who received less than they were promised.
The pandemic and strike disruption claims are based on alleged breaches of consumer contract law. Specifically, the claims are advanced in three ways: (i) a claim for breach of the specific contract under general contract law; (ii) a claim for breach of terms implied by Part I of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the “CRA”);[2](iii) an allegation that one or more of the terms are unfair under Part II of the CRA. It follows that these claims are likely to be substantially determined by the application of the CRA.
Claims under the CRA
Before bringing a claim under the CRA, the students must establish that they are a consumer, that is to say they are “an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession” (see s.2(3) CRA). It is relatively uncontroversial to suggest that undergraduate students will generally be consumers.
That is the Competition and Market’s Authority’s view as first confirmed in their March 2015 Guidance. However, the authorities suggest that even postgraduate students engaged in paid research may meet the definition.[3] Once consumer status is established, students can bring a claim for breach of an implied term or on the basis of unfair terms.
Under Part I of the CRA, contracts for university education are contracts for services. Those services must be performed ‘with reasonable care and skill’ (pursuant to s.49 CRA). Breach of this implied term can result in price reduction or a remedy for breach of contract (see s.54 CRA).
Further, those contracts incorporate, as terms, any information supplied to the student by the university which was taken into account by the student, as long as it was not varied by agreement or qualified by something else ‘said or written’ to the student at that time (pursuant to s.50(2) CRA).
Student could therefore claim that the teaching provided during the pandemic and the strikes did not meet the“reasonable care and skill” threshold or that the teaching did not meet what had previously been said about the teaching by the University. The merits of such claims will plainly depend on the facts of each case, but the following arguments could assist universities:
- ‘Reasonable care and skill’ should be assessed contextually. During the pandemic, all universities switched to online course delivery in line with government restrictions on public assembly. Although online delivery might not be reasonable in ordinary conditions, this was a reasonable accommodation in order to comply with lockdown and public health guidance in the circumstances.
- It would have been unreasonable and unlawful for universities to provide in-person teaching and facilities at points during the Pandemic. Indeed, at numerous points it would have been unlawful for students to attend such in person teaching.
- It is notoriously difficult for claimants to establish liability for damages for non-financial loss. Defendant universities could argue that it is not possible for the court to disentangle injuries to feelings and distress caused by university disruption from such injuries caused by the general context of the pandemic.
- On price reduction, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (the “OIA”) has recommended that universities make small payments to students in respect of covid disruption in isolated cases. However, those decisions were reached on analysing whether universities acted ‘reasonably’ in a non-legal sense unrelated to contract law. Whether students are legally entitled to price reduction is for the court to decide based on the context, specifically the contractual terms.
- Whilst the teaching provided during the pandemic clearly differed from the teaching provided before and after the pandemic. However, that does not establish that the teaching during the pandemic fell short of the contractual standard.
Under Part II of the CRA, a term will be unfair if it causes a significant imbalance to the detriment of the student, contrary to the requirement of good faith (see s.62 CRA). Here, student claimants would argue that clauses affording universities wide discretion to vary the method of course delivery or content and clauses restricting their right to withdraw from a course are unfair.
Terms must also be transparent (s.68), meaning they must be expressed in ‘plain and intelligible language’ and clearly set out the ‘economic consequences for the consumer of accepting the clause’.[4] Lack of transparency can affect the substantive unfairness analysis: a transparent clause is more likely to be fair.
Where a term is unfair under the CRA, that term is ‘not binding on the consumer’ (s.62(1)). Where money was paid pursuant to a term subsequently held to be unfair, a claimant can claim back that money in restitution for a payment without basis or paid over by mistake. This is how student claimants (and their representatives) hope to monetise retrospective unfair term challenges in relation to teaching during the pandemic and the strikes.
The merits of an unfair terms challenge will also depend on the facts of each case but, universities would be well advised to consider the following points in their defence:
- Universities could reasonably have expected that a student would agree to such a clause in an individual negotiation, meaning that the terms were agreed in ‘good faith’.[5] Indeed, flexibility in course delivery is (as the pandemic demonstrated) necessary for universities to respond to unanticipated events and lawfully provide their services. Terms allowing universities were not included in contracts to take advantage of a student’s ‘necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position and other circumstances.[6]
- In the absence of terms permitting universities to change the way in which the courses were delivered, the contracts would have been frustrated by the Pandemic. This would not have been in the students’ interests.
- Importantly, universities provide students and society with significant financial (and other) benefits flowing from contractual terms which provide them flexibility in course delivery and enable their continued operation whilst balancing research budgets etc. In ordinary times, universities could not provide such broad curricula without retaining a high level of flexibility to amend and update course delivery modes as needed.
Procedural hurdles for the claimants
In addition to potential difficulties with the substantive claims, the student groups face a number of procedural difficulties.
Group claims abound across all areas of law. Bringing claims en masse provides claimant solicitors with a strong pitch for external litigation funding, enables the pooling of resources and sharing of expenses across claims and raises the prospect of a global (and lucrative) settlement. However, the legal principles underpinning group claims are contested.
Broadly speaking, there are two ways in which student claimants can bring group claims: (i) issue an omnibus claim, where multiple claims from multiple claimants are dealt with on a single claim form; or (ii) apply for a group litigation order (“GLO”) where the court treats like claims alike according to ‘common issues’ and disposes of them together.[7]
It is possible successfully to oppose applications for GLOs in claims of this nature. Returning to the UCL claim as an example, negotiations having been unsuccessful, the claimants applied for a GLO[8] but their application was rejected.
Despite the proposed GLO issues encompassing 43 different strike days across three years during which over 6,000 modules could have been affected in any number of ways (from teaching as normal to postponed / catch-up sessions to no teaching at all), Senior Master Cook held that the legal issues between claims were sufficiently common for a GLO to be ordered. This was largely because of the contractual nature of the claims: the court could interpret the students’ contracts and opine on what they required in terms of course delivery.
However, exercising his discretion, Senior Master Cook declined to issue a GLO. Instead, Hamon v UCL was to proceed through ‘creative use’[9] of the court’s case management powers because a GLO was unnecessary: the parties were close to being aligned on how the case should be managed, and maintaining a register for the GLO claimants would be unnecessary as most claims would be stayed whilst test cases proceeded to trial.[10] GLOs may be refused in future claims for similar reasons. Alternatively, it is also possible that GLOs would be refused if the Court has concerns about the claimants’ funding position, the defendant is able to persuade the Court that the claims do not, in fact, involve sufficient common issues or the defendant is able to persuade the court that a GLO is otherwise undesirable.
It may also be possible to oppose the use of omnibus claim forms outside of a formal GLO. Whilst there are clearly legal similarities between the claims of the various students, it is not clear how the trial of test claims from the group proceeding to trial would conveniently dispose of the other claims within the group within the same proceedings.
Of course, if the goal is to reach a settlement, then one can overlook the individual facts and nuances of each case and settle globally. However, if a future defendant took a different approach to UCL, it is entirely plausible that group litigation in this manner would not resolve the majority (let alone all) of these claims and consequently, the defendant may be able to object to the omnibus claim form itself.
Points to take away
The settlement may be the end of matters for UCL, but it has only heralded the beginning of a wave of potential litigation against the university sector. As we have flagged in this article, in any such litigation the following is a non-exhaustive list of issues that should be carefully considered:
- Substantive defences: UCL settled without admitting liability and no court has assessed the merits of the students’ claims. Universities can argue their contract terms are valid and fair, and that the service provided conformed to those terms and satisfied the threshold of the CRA. Universities could also argue that claimants engaged in graduate research were not consumers, meaning that the CRA does not regulate their contracts.
- Role of universities/stay of proceedings: while not an immunity from properly formed legal claims, universities have a legitimate claim to being insulated from mass claims in favour of staying legal proceedings to reach a settlement. Master Fontaine had specific regard to UCL’s character as ‘a charitable institution, and a leading UK university’ in considering that ‘its management time and funds could be more productively spent than on substantial legal costs’.[11]
- Limitation: there is still some time to run before claimants must commence proceedings. The UCL claimants included some who allegedly received modified course delivery (online tuition and / or restricted physical access to facilities) due to covid and strike-related disruption as late as 2021-22.[12]With a six-year limitation period running from the alleged breaches, 2028 could be the cut-off for similar claimants. UCL indicated they would argue that such claims were barred because of common assumptions about course delivery in the pandemic between the students and university on which the university relied (estoppel by convention).
- Procedure: given the unsuccessful GLO application in Hamon v UCL, future claims may be attempted using the omnibus procedure. Courts may allow omnibus claims where it is “convenient”.[13] What this means is soon to be considered by the Court of Appeal in the consumer credit context.[14]
- Challenging the conduct of the other side: joining even a group claim involves work for individual claimants. The claimants’ solicitors were criticised at the first Hamon v UCL hearing for not explaining that bringing litigation requires more than just signing up online and waiting for compensation to come through.[15]
- ADR: the OIA is the statutory body to deal with higher education disputes in a non-legal setting. Whilst the ability of the OIA to deal substantively and with quantum issues in respect of mass complaints on this scale has been questioned,[16] the OIA remains a cost-free avenue for students and a consultation on changes to the OIA’s rules to make them more flexible and guidance-like will open soon.[17]
- Potential CMA action: the CMA, as the consumer law regulator, may launch an investigation or review (as it did in 2015-16 in relation to higher education) to monitor compliance with consumer law across the higher education sector. Responding to a CMA investigation can drain time and resources.
Jonathan Kirk KC and Lee Finch have acted for several universities in relation to CRA claims. Harry Hatwell is currently a pupil in Chambers.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/feb/18/tens-of-thousands-more-students-join-legal-action-over-covid-hit-studies
[2] Now repealed and replaced with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
[3] Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd [2022] EWHC 3200 (Pat)
[4] Kasler v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt (C-26/13) at [75]
[5] See ParkingEye v Beavis [2016] AC 1172 at [108]
[6] Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd [2022] EWHC 3200 (Pat) at [616]
[7] For attempts to bring consumer finance omnibus claims, see Angel v Black Horse Limited [2025] EWHC 490 (KB) (currently under appeal); for an attempted consumer finance GLO, see Abernethy v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2025] EWCC 1 (considering CPR 19).
[8] Hammon v UCL [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB) (sic)
[9] [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB) at [45]
[10] [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB) at [53]
[11] [2023] EWHC 1812 (KB) at [61]
[12] [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB) at [2]-[4]
[13] ‘A claimant may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings.’ (CPR 7.3)
[14] Appeal from Angel v Black Horse Limited [2025] EWHC 490 (KB)
[15] [2023] EWHC 1812 (KB) at [69]
[16] [2023] EWHC 1812 (KB) at [58]; see also https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/latest-news-and…dates/oia-open-letter-re-hamon-others-v-university-college-london/
[17] https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/latest-news-an…anges-to-its-scheme-rules-what-is-it-and-how-can-you-be-involved/