RAJ v MSH [2026] EWHC 80 (KB)

Date 27 th February 2026[2026] EWHC 80 (KB)Case No QB-2021-004157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate Date: 19/01/2026
Before
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC
Between
RAJClaimantMSHDefendant
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 19 th January 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Aidan Eardley KC :

[1]This is my judgment on a trial of preliminary issues (TPI). The issues are the familiar ones which arise in most libel claims: (a). The single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of; (b). Whether, in those meanings, the words complained of amount to allegations of fact or expressions of opinion; (c). Whether, in those meanings, the words complained of are defamatory at common law.[2]There is also a claim for malicious falsehood, and I return to this below.[3]With the parties’ consent, I have determined these issues without a hearing. It is not appropriate to follow the procedure adopted in Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 650 (QB), i.e. to make available the parties’ written submissions when handing down this judgment. The submissions include material that would identify the parties. The Court has granted them anonymity. Parties, factual background, publications complained of[4]The Claimant is a university lecturer who, at the material time, was the academic lead for his university’s LLB Law and Practice course, with programme management and teaching responsibilities.[5]The Defendant was a final year student on the university’s LLB Law and Practice course in the academic year commencing September 2019. Some of the modules the Defendant undertook during that academic year were taught and assessed by the Claimant.[6]In 2020, the Defendant was awarded a 2:2 degree. She says that she narrowly missed out on a 2:1, falling short by just 2 points.[7]On 5 November 2020, the Defendant sent an email to members of the University Registry team, titled “Re: Complaint – LLB Result Classification – Urgent Review Request” (the Review Request). An anonymised copy of the Review Request is attached at Appendix 1 to this judgment.[8]On 2 December 2020, the Defendant submitted to the University an appeal against her degree classification (the Academic Appeal). An anonymised copy of the Academic Appeal is attached at Appendix 2 to this judgment.[9]The Claimant contends that the statements he complains of within each of the Review Request and the Academic Appeal are defamatory of him at common law and that their publication to university staff has caused serious harm to his reputation. It is accepted that the statements referred to him. Procedural history[10]The history of this claim has been lengthy and convoluted. I do not need to describe every twist and turn.[11]The Claimant’s present case is set out in his Amended Particulars of Claim dated 14 June 2023 (A/PC). The most recent iteration of the Defence is a proposed Re-Amended Defence dated 17 November 2023. It is unclear to me whether permission has been granted to the Defendant to rely on this document but, in any event, she was ordered to file a document setting out her case on meaning etc and did so on 17 September 2024 (the Defendant’s Statement on Meaning) so I have taken this as definitive of her position.[12]A TPI was first ordered by Master Dagnall on 19 July 2024 when he simply directed that “there shall be a trial on meaning as a preliminary issue”. Later, Collins Rice J directed in her Order of 17 September 2025 that the parties’ submissions should be “strictly limited to” the issues that I have identified above (natural and ordinary meaning, fact/opinion, defamatory at common law).[13]The Defendant filed a revised skeleton argument for the TPI on 10 October 2025 and the Claimant filed a revised position statement on 8 December 2025. I have taken both into account, notwithstanding that they were filed outside the timeframe imposed by Collins Rice J.[14]I have been provided with “clean” unannotated copies of the Review Request and the Academic Appeal. In accordance with established practice, I read these and formed provisional views on the preliminary issues before considering any of the parties’ pleaded meanings or submissions. Legal principles[15]For the purposes of the libel claim, I must identify the single, natural and ordinary meaning of the statements complained of, applying the well-established principles re-stated by Nicklin J in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC (KB) 48, [2020] 4 WLR 25 at [12] (approved by the Court of Appeal in Corbyn v Millett [2021] EWCA Civ 567, [2021] EMLR 19). I direct myself by reference to those principles and do not need to set them out here. The overall task is to determine the meaning that would be conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader, reading the statement once.[16]The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question. However the Court should be cautious about ascribing particular characteristics to publishees without evidence (principle (xi)). A party who wishes to argue that publishees would have understood a statement in a particular sense because they already knew additional facts that had a bearing on how the meaning would have struck them must usually identify those facts and those publishees who knew them (an “innuendo meaning”, in libel law parlance).[17]I am not bound by the parties’ pleaded meanings: I can take my own view, so long as I do not find a meaning that is more injurious than the claimant’s pleaded meaning: principle (xiii). Further, in relation to principle (xiii), claimants can (to some extent) choose which aspects of a statement they complain about: “…the judge should not normally make a finding of any meaning which is not either advanced to some extent in the statement of case or submissions of one or other party, or within the same class or range as a meaning so advanced”: Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 971 at [82] (Warby J).[18]A statement must be read in its context. In certain circumstances, the relevant context may extend beyond the document in which the statement is situated and include extrinsic material, so long as it could reasonably be expected to be known to (or read by) all the publishees: Riley v Murray [2020] EWHC 977 (QB), [2020] EMLR 20at [16]-[17] (Nicklin J). A party who wishes to rely on such extrinsic material must identify it in their statement of case: Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2020] EWHC 934 (QB) at [14] (Nicklin J).[19]The Claimant refers me to Berkoff v Burchill [1997] EMLR 139 at 151 where Neill LJ said that, while the meaning of a statement is determined objectively, by reference to the reaction of the ordinary reasonable reader and not by the intention of the publisher, “the perceived intention of the publisher may colour the meaning”. I accept that, of course, but I do not consider that it makes any real difference in the present case.[20]Koutsogiannis also sets out, at [16]-[17], the definitive approach to determining whether a statement is a statement of fact or an expression of opinion and I direct myself by reference to that statement of the law: essentially I am concerned again with the impression that the words would make on the reasonable reader.[21]A statement is defamatory at common law if it would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally and would have a substantially adverse effect on the way that people would treat the claimant: Corbyn [9]. I am not presently concerned with the question of whether the publication of the statements complained of would surpass the higher threshold of “serious harm” introduced by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013.[22]In accordance with the practice that has developed since British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, [2011] 1 WLR 133 (see [32], Lord Judge CJ), I have considered the three preliminary issues concurrently rather than sequentially, lest my resolution of one of the issues might artificially “stifle” my approach to the others.[23]The Court of Appeal has recently reminded judges about the nature of our task on a TPI in a libel claim:
“[…] any determination must be clear, unequivocal, and firmly tied to the purposes of rulings of this kind. These are to identify and spell out with precision one or more meanings or imputations about the claimant that meet the common law tests for what is defamatory and, where appropriate, to categorise the statement as factual or as an expression of opinion. Anything that falls short of meeting these criteria risks generating further disagreement and dispute.”
Hemming v Poulton [2025] EWCA Civ 1494 at [10] (Warby LJ) Hemming v Poulton [2025] EWCA Civ 1494 at [10] (Warby LJ) The parties’ submissions on the libel TPI The Claimant’s case and submissions

Hemming v Poulton [2025] EWCA Civ 1494 at [10] (Warby LJ)

[24]The A/PC advance the following meanings in respect of the Review Request:(1) The Claimant sexually harassed the Defendant in the course of her classroom and face-to-face studies (23 September 2019-19 March 2020) by demanding that she enter into a sexual relationship with him;(2) The Claimant victimised the Defendant when she refused to have the alleged sexual relationship with him, by marking down her coursework and awarding lower than deserved marks for her [specified modules I have omitted the module titles from the parties’ meanings on a precautionary basis because the Claimant contends that they are unique to the University and would tend to identify the parties. ] (23 September 2019-10 April 2020);(3) The Claimant victimised the Defendant by withholding information from her in order to adversely affect her performance and by refusing to provide her a reference for her Legal Practice Course application (June 2020) after being asked to do so in writing, in an attempt to coerce her into meeting in private in order to make sexual advances;(4) The Claimant abused his office as a university lecturer by coercing the Defendant into a relationship against her wishes and awarded her improved marks for [specified modules] (27 April-17 July 2020) as a reward for the alleged relationship;(5) The Claimant abused his office by providing the Defendant with misleading information about her degree classification in order to manipulate her for his own benefit;(6) The Claimant discriminated against the Defendant by targeting and awarding her lower than deserved marks on account of her religion.[25]The A/PC advance the following meanings in respect of the Academic Appeal:(1) The Claimant used the threat of mark reduction to force the Defendant into a sexual relationship with him during her final two modules[specified modules] (27 April-17 July 2020) as a result of which she was given “fair marks” for her two final modules;(2) Subsequent to receiving the “fair marks” for her final modules, when the Defendant refused to engage in sex with him, the Claimant reduced the Defendant’s grade resulting in lowering her degree classification from a 2.1to a 2.2;(3) The Claimant victimised the Defendant by failing to disclose his alleged sexual interest in her to the University examination board and moderation team which resulted in the reduction of her marks for [specified modules] (23 September 2019-10 April 2020);(4) The Claimant sexually harassed the Defendant at a meeting within the University around the first week of October 2019 by making sexual advances at her, describing his drug use to her, giving her his telephone number and asking her to meet privately with him;(5) The Claimant subsequently victimised the Defendant with the result that her grades for [specified module] (11 Nov-20 Dec 2019) were reduced, on account of her refusal to meet privately with him for sex;(6) The Claimant discriminated against the Defendant by ignoring her emails seeking assistance for her assessments whilst providing guidance to his ‘favourite students’ one week in advance of other students.[26]The Claimant pleads reliance, for context, on various documents that were submitted with the Academic Appeal. He is entitled to do so (it is reasonable to assume that recipients of the appeal document would have read all these), though I do not consider that they make any difference on the issues I have to decide.[27]The Claimant’s case is that all the statements complained of amount to statements of fact, not expressions of opinion, and that they are defamatory of him at common law. He contends that they convey “Chase level 1” meanings (after Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772, [2003] EMLR 11), i.e. they allege actual misconduct by the Claimant, not merely that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he engaged in misconduct or to investigate whether he did so.[28]The Claimant stresses that the publishees were university personnel and would have understood that the Defendant’s allegations relating to the marking of her coursework concerned critical time periods during her final year of studies. The Claimant contends that the publishees would have been well aware that here statements were made in a formal context and meant seriously. The Defendant’s case[29]In respect of the Review Request, the Defendant accepts the first three of the Claimant’s meaning but advances the following alternative meanings in place of the Claimant’s fourth, fifth and sixth meanings: […] (4) The Claimant abused his office as a university lecturer by exploring (sic) the power imbalance in coercing the Defendant into a relationship which she ordinarily would not have got into without the Claimant’s chains of advances and awarded her improved marks for [specified modules] (27 April -17 July 2020) as a reward for the alleged relationship; (5) The Claimant abused his office by providing the Defendant with misleading information about her degree classification and non-detriment policy in order to manipulate her for his own benefit; (6) The Claimant discriminated against the Defendant by commenting on, and attempting to pull up her hijab to see and feel her real haring during the classroom meeting. The Claimant awarded the Defendant lower than deserved marks in earlier modules when she was refusing to relate to him in the way he wanted.[30]In respect of the Academic Appeal document, the Defendant agrees with the Claimant’s second pleaded meaning and advances the following alternatives to the Claimant’s other pleaded meanings:(1) The Claimant used the threat of mark reduction to force the Defendant into a sexual relationship with him during her final two modules as her result in [specified modules] showed improved marks compared to the earlier 4 modules which Claimant confirmed to the Defendant during their sexual relationship that it was improved because they were relating well at that time;(2) […];(3) The Claimant victimised the Defendant by reduction of her marks for [specified modules] (23 September 2019-10 April 2020), with an unfair and vindictive view. The Claimant then failed to disclose his alleged sexual interest in her to the University examination board and moderation team;(4) The Claimant sexually harassed the Defendant at a meeting within the University around the first week of October 2019 by making sexual advances at her, telling he loved [nationality Again, omitted on a precautionary basis as the Claimant contends that disclosure of the Defendant’s nationality would contribute to identifying the parties. ] women, liked Defendants (sic), liked her pretty face, attempting to touch her hijab with the view of pulling it up to see and feel her real hair describing how he dates [nationality] women and his drug use with them to her, giving her his telephone number and asking her to meet privately with him if he wants to do well in his class;(5) The Claimant subsequently victimised and discriminated against the Defendant upon refusal to co-operate with him initially with the result that her marks in the 4 earlier modules (specified modules]– 23 September 2019-10 April 2020) were given marks less than her work deserved on account of her refusal to meet privately or relate to the Claimant the way he had wanted (sexual relationship);(6) The Claimant discriminated against the Defendant by ignoring her emails seeking assistance for her assessments whilst providing guidance to his ‘favourite students’ in a much earlier time than herself.[31]Although not evidenced by the formulations the Defendant actually advances, she contends that the statements complained of fall short of Chase Level 1. Rather, she contends, her statements call for an investigation into the Claimant’s conduct instead of alleging guilt. In support of this contention she relies on the context of her communications – they were submitted to the University in order to instigate an investigation - and the role and characteristics of the publishees – trained University officers tasked with handling complaints in accordance with the University’s policies, such that they will have kept an open mind pending a full and fair investigation. She therefore characterises the reasonable reader of her communications as “informed, balanced and procedurally literate – not a naïve outsider”.[32]The Defendant accepts that the statements complained of are defamatory of the Claimant at common law in the meaning she ascribes to them. She contends that they are predominantly expressions of opinion, relying on the context to assert that her words are evaluations of the Claimant’s conduct based on her own experience. The libel TPI – decision and reasons The Review Request[33]In my judgement, the statements complained of in the Review Request bore the following natural and ordinary meanings:(1) The Claimant sexually harassed and victimised the Defendant (his student) by refusing to address complaints that the Defendant had raised unless the Defendant was prepared to get close to him, and then failing to assist her with her studies, failing to respond to a request for an academic reference, and giving her lower marks than deserved, until she began to talk to him in the manner he desired;(2) By asking the Defendant to get close to him, the Claimant was improperly asking her to engage in a sexual relationship with him.(3) When the Defendant reluctantly responded to the Claimant’s advances, he misled her by falsely stating that it had been decided that she would be awarded a 2:1 degree. He did so in order to manipulate the Defendant for his own benefit;(4) The Claimant targeted the Defendant in class and discriminated against her because she wears a Hijab for religious reasons and because she refused to socialise with him.[34]As can be seen, I have formulated my own meanings which have elements of both parties’ meanings. The parties’ meanings struck me as including detail that was unnecessary for the purpose of articulating the defamatory sting, rendering them overlong and in some respects confusing. Based on my initial impressions (before reading the parties’ cases) I might have been inclined to state a meaning that was more serious or extensive in some respects, but I bear in mind Koutsogiannis principle (xiii) and the guidance in Yeo that I have set out above.[35]Although the Claimant makes much of the fact that recipients of this document were university staff with knowledge of the timing of various course assessments etc, I do not think that this has any real significance, so far as his case is concerned. The defamatory sting that I have sought to capture in my formulation above would have been readily apparent to anyone, with or without knowledge of specific university procedures and the examination timetable. Likewise, in contrast to the Claimant, I have not found it necessary to incorporate “abuse of office” into the meanings. Plainly, a lecturer who behaved in the manner alleged would be abusing their office, but that, it seems to me, will be something to consider at the “serious harm” stage. It does not need to be spelled out as part of the meaning.[36]The underlined meaning would strike the reasonable reader as an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact and, though I am not asked to determine the point, my view is that the Review Request sufficiently indicated the basis of this opinions, for the purposes of Defamation Act 2013, s3(3). The words that give rise to the allegation that the Claimant wanted a sexual relationship are “…he …suggested that I could not successfully challenge him unless ‘I get close to him’ in other words engage in sexual relationship with him”. The reader can therefore see that this is the subjective interpretation the Defendant is placing on the words “get close”.[37]I considered whether the allegation that the Claimant’s harassing conduct was sexual in nature was also an expression of opinion. I reached the view that there is a clear factual allegation of sexual harassment in the statement, and that the only part of it that is presented as a matter of subjective evaluation (and hence, opinion) is the suggestion that, by asking the Defendant to become “close” to him, the Claimant was asking her to enter into a sexual relationship. Sexual harassment can occur, as the reasonable reader would recognise, in many ways falling short of actually proposing a sexual liaison. In my judgement, a reasonable reader would recognise that it was being alleged, as a fact, that the Claimant was harassing the Defendant on the basis of her sex. Only the suggestion that he was actually proposing a sexual relationship with her would strike the reasonable reader as the Defendant’s own subjective interpretation of what the Claimant was seeking.[38]I also considered whether the allegation that the Claimant was engaged in manipulating the Defendant for his own benefit might qualify as an expression of opinion. Statements about person’s inner motivations can often strike a reader as the writer’s own subjective inferences or conclusions from the person’s outwardly observable conduct. That is not how the allegation is presented in the Review Request, however (“it turned out that all the information he gave me was to manipulate me for his personal benefit…”). In my judgement it would strike the reader as an assertion of established fact that the Defendant has discovered, not a personal opinion.[39]The statements complained of in the Review Request are indisputably defamatory of the Claimant at common law. They are Chase Level 1 meanings. I reject the Defendant’s assertion that the allegations are pitched at some lower Chase level. In doing so, I accept the Defendant’s description of the context and the likely characteristics of the recipients of the Review Request. This does not change the fact that her communication made allegations of actual misconduct by the Claimant, presented as a first-hand account of what actually occurred. In the eyes of the reasonable reader, she was not simply identifying matters that may raise suspicions about the Claimant or grounds for investigation. The fact that the University staff who received the Review Request were tasked with keeping an open mind pending a full investigation into the allegations may be something that assists the Defendant on the issue of “serious harm” in due course, but it does not change the meaning that a reasonable staff member would have attached to the communication. The Academic Appeal[40]In my judgement, the statements complained of in the Academic Appeal bore the following natural and ordinary meanings:(1) The Claimant forced the Defendant (his student) to enter into a relationship and to engage in sexual acts against her will by threatening to reduce her grades and marks and telling her that his decisions would be beyond challenge;(2) The Claimant nevertheless reduced the Defendant’s grades and marks because she refused his demands to have penetrative sex with him;(3) The Claimant failed to disclose his sexual interest in the Defendant and her refusal of his sexual demands to the rest of the exam board and moderation team (of which he was a member), such that his low marking prevailed and the Claimant achieved only a 2:2 degree instead of a 2:1;(4) The Claimant is thereby guilty of sexually harassing and victimising the Defendant.[41]Again, these meanings would have been conveyed to any reader of the document and do not depend on detailed knowledge of university procedures.[42]The statements in the Academic Appeal are, in my judgement, all allegations of fact, not expressions of opinion. The form invites the person completing it to identify facts and evidence that support their appeal, and that, in the eyes of the reasonable reader, is what the Defendant has done.[43]There is no dispute that the statements complained of in the Academic Appeal are defamatory of the Claimant at common law. They are all Chase Level 1 allegations for the same reason that I have given in respect of the Review Request. The malicious falsehood claim[44]The Claimant also brings a claim for malicious falsehood, founded on the same statements complained of.[45]There are significant differences between the torts of libel and malicious falsehood, one of them being that the “single meaning rule” applicable in libel does not apply in malicious falsehood. Instead, a claimant is entitled to advance any meaning which falls within the range of reasonable interpretations of the statement complained of: Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 609, [2011] QB 497; Cruddas v Calvert [2013] EWHC 1427 (QB), [2014] EMLR 4 at [56]-[69] (Tugendhat J).[46]The Claimant’s position statement invites me to determine that the meanings he has pleaded in the A/PC are at least “available” meanings for the purposes of a malicious falsehood claim, even if they may not be the single natural and ordinary meaning that falls to be applied to the statements for the purposes of a libel claim.[47]I have hesitated over whether it is really open to me to make a meaning determination in respect of the malicious falsehood claim. Master Dagnall’s order of 19 July 2024 directs a TPI on “meaning” without further qualification; but Collins Rice J’s Order of 17 September 2025 then limits submissions to the “single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of” (i.e. their meaning for libel purposes).[48]Despite these misgivings, I have decided that it is appropriate and fair to decide the issue of meaning in relation to malicious falsehood as well as libel. It falls within the scope of Master Dagnall’s original order and, although the Defendant has not expressly addressed it, she has not suggested that any of the Claimant’s pleaded meanings are incapable of being conveyed by the statements complained of (as opposed to just being wrong according to the libel test).[49]Although I have not adopted the Claimant’s meanings for the purposes of the libel claim, I accept that his pleaded meanings in respect of the statements complained of in the Review Request and the Academic Appeal are within the range of meanings that a reasonable recipient of these documents might attach to them. Accordingly, the malicious falsehood claim can go ahead on the basis of the meanings set out in the A/PC. Alternatively, if the Claimant now wishes to bring his malicious falsehood pleading in to line with my libel meanings, that would be permissible. It would certainly simplify matters.[50]The consequences, for the malicious falsehood claim, of my finding that a small aspect of the Review Request contains a statement of opinion, are best addressed at trial. It seems unlikely that the point will have any great significance. Costs[51]The Claimant seeks his costs of the TPI and has submitted a costs schedule. The usual order at the conclusion of a TPI of this nature is “costs in the case”: Sharif v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 343 (QB) at [41]-[47] (Nicklin J). There is no reason to depart from that approach here. Neither party has “won” the TPI and I cannot predict what effect my decision on the TPI might have on the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. Neither party has taken an unreasonable stance that has caused unnecessary costs to be expended. Conclusion and next steps[52]I have made the following determinations:(1) The statements complained of bear the single natural and ordinary meanings that I have set out at paragraphs 33 and 40 above;(2) The underlined part of those meanings was an expression of opinion. The remainder were statements of fact;(3) The statements complained of, in the meanings I have found them to bear, were defamatory of the Claimant at common law;(4) For the purposes of his malicious falsehood claim, the Claimant may rely on the meanings he has pleaded in the A/PC if he wishes;(5) The costs of the TPI will be “costs in the case”[53]If either party considers that they may wish to appeal against these determinations, they should inform the Court prior to hand down of this judgment, so that I can take steps to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain an application for permission to appeal.[54]After so long in the doldrums, this case now needs to progress swiftly towards trial. When circulating this judgment in draft, I have also circulated a draft order setting a tight timetable for the necessary amendments to statements of case and thereafter a CMC to obtain trial directions. I have asked for the parties’ comments on these proposals. Appendix A58. APPENDIX 159. Complaint Department60. 5 November 202061. Dear Sir/madam Re: Complaint – LLB Result Classification - Urgent Review Request (Student No:62. I refer to my academic results and degree classification in the Law Faculty atan urgent review of my course work grades on the following headings; and request Victimisation and harassment Breach of legitimate expectation on result/career prospects Discrimination Misrepresentation in relation to programme/quality and teaching methods Request for Special dispensation Victimisation and harassment63. I have raised issues of harassment verbally on two occasions in the classroom with the Programme Leader and on a face to face encounter with the module leader (same person) who ignored me. On the second occasion, he displayed an unprofessional reaction and intimidating response in an aggressive harsh tone that suggested that I could not successfully challenge him unless “I get close tohim” in other words engage in sexual relationship with him.64. My refusal to engage in such conduct increased his hostility towards me and he continued to victimizeme through marking and moderation of my coursework giving me lower marks than those that weredeserved by my work. While I do not wish to divulge the offensive nature of the comments made tome at this stage due to the matter being assessed by my solicitors for a separate action, I do ask formy grades to be reviewed independently in the light of the impact that sexual harassment and thevictimisation that I suffered as a result.65. My career plans and aspirations have been disrupted. Please see attached emails W1 and W2 where there was a failure to respond and assist me and a failure to reply to an email regarding an LPC reference because he wanted to see me in “private’’ until I had to email him again before he responded to me with excuses. Unfortunately that delayed my application for almost a month. 117i66. In my last two modules and my result had shown a lot of improvement as marksachieved was not adversely moderated. This was because the Programme Leader had intensified hispressures on me to get close to him and I reluctantly started talking to him in the manner he desiredagainst my principles and religion because I was scared he would harm my chances of achieving mypotentials if I continue to refuse his advances. 2. Breach of legitimate expectation67. The Programme leader made a number of statements to us in our final year in relation to our resultswhich were not true. In view of this, an urgent review of my result is therefore necessary to rectify the matter and the continuing damage it is causing me.68. Programme Leader had informed me that he checked my result on and I had achieved a 2:1because “I am now close to him”. I now note that this is against Data Protection Act if done for reasonsother than administrative and in this occasion was to use as a weapon to attract me for his personalpleasure.69. He had confirmed that I did well in the last two modules stated above and he allowed it because I amnow close to him. He further confirmed that would apply different methods in classifyingour degree classification result which includes firstly – the average of our three best modules in finalyear, or secondly, our three best modules between final year and which is a second yearcourse or finally, the average of our best three modules between final year, and70. whichever one that gives us a better outcome. He confirmed and categorically said this is the newmethod that University has agreed because of the Covid19 and we are lucky. He also made this statement about methods of calculation that would include our and on few occasions in the class and many people can bear me witnesses to this.I can now confirm that this was not applied accordingly as he earlier promised. He confirmed that I had a 2:1 and categorically asked me to update my Linked-in professionalProfile and advised me on how to hire academic gown to celebrate privately with my familyas Covid19 situations allowed that. He pointed me on where to request for the gown hire andmade me believe he was genuine. However, it turned out that all the information he gave me was to manipulate me for hispersonal benefit and he knew they were not true and I relied on it and celebrated with myfamily with the view that I had a 2:1 and updated these in my Linked- in profile. I had also made some training contract application on the basis which are clearly false and hascaused me concerns as I gave incorrect information innocently. Discrimination71. I have been targeted in class because I wear a Hijab due to my religion and refusal to socialise withthe Programme Leader and Principal Lecturer in a manner which is unethical in my opinion. This was 117ii72. because of the approaches he initially made to me which I found offensive and unprofessional butcontinued despite my protestations.73. As a result I have been targeted and punished by lower than deserved grades in marking andmoderation of my Course-works unfavourably.74. While there are ad hoc inputs and reviews from other junior lecturers in some of the above modules,the Programme Leader was the Module Leader and participated in the moderation of the final marksand has considerable influence in marks awarded irrespective of the opinion of any other personinvolved. The discriminatory treatment is further shown in email W3-W7 where other students aretreated more favourably. In my Coursework 1 – I believe that mark obtained was not proportionate to the quality of my performance in my work. In my Coursework 1 – I believe that mark obtained was not proportionate to thequality of my performance in my work. In – Coursework 1 – I believe that mark obtained was not proportionate tothe quality of my performance in my work. While Coursework 2 was a group work, the CourseLeader misrepresented the marking and awarding criteria and clearly discriminated inawarding marks which were not transparently and evenly distributed. Programme Leader had earlier informed us in class before the assessments that the group members will be awarded marks equally as a collaborative exercise which carries 90% of the entire mark while the Peer Assessment element will have only carry 10%. However, we scored 64% in the group collaborative work, which equates to a mark of 57against the weighted 90% of the entire mark to be shared in course work 2 and the peer reviewmark which is weighted 10% should have complimented the above 57 to bring it over 60%. Surprisingly, when the marks were disclosed he gave me 53% which is ironically lower than the 57% from the group mark of 64% leading to unacceptable award of variable mark particularly in relation to 1 and 2. However some “favourite” students retained initialmarks unchanged. Its not fair that the peer review assessment paper completed by team members we are not made transparent during the feedback to confirmed the individual mark awarded to each member of the group. Can you please request for this information to be provided for clarification. Misrepresentation and Breach of Duty of Care Failure to respond to my emails seeking help and academic clarification to complete my coursework has resulted in failing in its core duty of care towards me as student.This has caused me financial loss and damage to my career as a lawyer.75. 117iii There was also an occasion in relation to where insufficient notice was given ofchanges to coursework contrary to reasonable requirements. Request for Special dispensation/treatment76. I would ask that all of my complaints and issues are addressed urgently and I look forward to hearingfrom you as soon as possible.77. Yours faithfully78. 10.On 15th August 2020, took me to Restaurant, around 8pm and later to hishouse for sexual acts. 11.On 22nd August 2020, took me Restaurant and Café (near his house) at about 7 pm and later to his house for sexual acts. 12.He regularly calls me on whatsapp videos at nights and in some occasion, insist to seeing my hair or pyjamas 13.My investigating solicitors are trying to get a record of Uber trip that he paid for me to get home at about 12 midnight to about 1am when I left his house to go home after he had done all the sexual acts listed above but got stranded in due to train cancellations . 14.I have asked my telephone provider to send me my telephone call list for a period covering last 4 months. I have attached the bill highlighting his numbers and our chats. Unfortunately, this call record contained only the callsI made to him but the incoming calls from him were not included. A special procedure is required to get a copy that would also contain received calls but that would take a long time and cost some fees but would get it through the help of my solicitors. Please note that has two telephone numbers he gave me viz: He gave me the two numbers and said one was his private number. To manage your understanding or trustof my side of information, has taken me to his house on several gathered by investigating solicitors for a separateaction) This is to prove sexual harassment and relationship and his unprofessional behaviour towards me. (More evidence are being gathered byinvestigating solicitors for a separate action) This is to prove sexual harassment and relationship and his unprofessional behaviour towards me. (More evidence are being gathered byinvestigating solicitors for a separate action) This is against my religion but I had no option than to allow it since I could not challenge his academic decision as he made it clear to me and Ihave clearly seen him victimize me in the earlier assessments. This will be useful confirm that he was dating meand also in separate action being considered by my solicitors against him. This would prove how often and late he calls me and how late we talk to each other and further prove our relationship against his professional code of practice. This will become useful in a separate action beingconsidered by my solicitors. However, I have highlighted my return calls to him in the copy I have to prove our relationship when I succumbed to his desired relationship because I had no choice. 9 | P a g e September 2018 117xiii79. occasions. Having being to his house, I can confidently describe his 2 bedroomhouse if required. 15.I have attached my updated linked- in page as he advised me to write and confirm my 2:1 on my page for positive professional image. I have also shown my photo with graduation hood as he advised me to celebrate with my family and directed where to get gown just before the last look down. 16.I was progressing in my new part-time carer as the but the anguish caused me affected me very badly that I lost my focus and money paid for my planned and now losing concentration in my LPC . This is to confirm that I know his house verywell incidental to him dating me a doing the sexual acts there with me. This proves how much he manipulated mewith legitimate expectation and misinformation which he wilfully knew was wrong.[8]OUTCOME What would you like to happen as an outcome of this appeal? Remember: you cannot ask foran outcome that is not permitted within the CU Group’s Regulations. I am seeking special dispensation to move me to the next level of classification due to the sexual harassment suffered in the hands of who is your employee and the victimization he caused mehad affected my current result classification as otherwise I would have had a 2:1 being currently about 2marks away. He mis-represented the way final result calculation are to made and carelessly made false statements that I relied on to my detriment. Alternatively , if my papers cannot be re-marked on policy reasons, I would kindly ask that you may include my CURRENT marks in and COURSEWORKS (where I believe my81. marks were not reduced by82. with my current grades in and ) in re- calculating my degree result classification together83. as these will give me a better outcome as84. promotes any combination that gives a student a better outcome.85. September 2018 117xiv 10 | P a g e