A law lecturer is bringing a libel claim against a former student who alleged he threatened to reduce her mark unless she slept with him, a court judgment has revealed.

In RAJ v MSH the male claimant alleges that he was defamed by the woman when she sent an email to members of the university registry team outlining details of his alleged misconduct.

In a judgment on preliminary issues, Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC ruled that the statements complained of were defamatory because they accused the lecturer of forcing the student to enter into a relationship and to engage in sexual acts against her will. Both parties were granted anonymity by the court. The case will now proceed to trial. 

The court heard that the lecturer was the academic lead for his university’s LLB law and practice course. The defendant was a final year student who was awarded a 2:2 degree, missing out on a 2:1 by a few marks.

In November 2020, the defendant sent the university registry team an email titled Re: Complaint - LLB Result Classification - Urgent Review Request. An anonymised copy of the email was attached to the judgment. The student requested an urgent review of her course work grades on the basis of victimisation, harassment and discrimination. She alleged his hostility to her increased when she refused to engage in a sexual relationship with him, and she was victimised by receiving lower marks than her work deserved.

The student claimed in the email she had been targeted in class because she wore a hijab and she refused to socialise with the lecturer, adding that she had been ‘targeted and punished’ through her grades.

The email concluded: ‘Due to the sexual harassment and discrimination I suffered health problems and poor sleep which affected my study and performance. I request that I be granted exceptional dispensation as otherwise I would have achieved higher grades and degree classification.’

The claimant submitted that all the statements complained of amounted to statements of fact, not expressions of opinion, and that they were defamatory of him at common law. The recipients of the email were university staff who would have been well aware that the student’s statements were made in a formal context and meant seriously.

The defendant accepted that the statements complained of were defamatory but contended they were predominantly expressions of opinion and evaluations of the claimant’s conduct based on her own experience.