Ex-magic circle lawyer who brought £1 million claim against Oxford Uni over ‘inadequate’ teaching now sues wealthy parents for life-long maintenance grant

Faiz Siddiqui, 41, claims he’s dependent on parents due to health issues

A former magic circle lawyer is suing his wealthy parents in an attempt to force them to provide him with a life-long maintenance grant.

Oxford University graduate Faiz Siddiqui, 41, says he’s dependent on his parents and is entitled to financial support as a “vulnerable” adult child of theirs with health issues. He argues that denying his claim would be a breach of his human rights.

The legal bid comes four years after Siddiqui tried to sue his former university when he failed to secure a first class degree. His £1 million compensation claim was struck out by the High Court in 2018.

Siddiqui, who trained as a solicitor at the magic circle law firm Clifford Chance and went on to practise at other big name outfits, currently lives rent-free in an apartment owned by his parents near London’s Hyde Park, The Sun newspaper reports. They give their son, who is said to be unemployed, around £400 a week and cover his bills, but now want to reduce their level of support following a family row.

The claim has now reached the Court of Appeal after being rejected by a family court judge last year. Justin Warshaw QC of 1 Hare Court, who is representing Siddiqui’s parents, said: “These long-suffering parents have their own view of what is suitable provision for their ‘difficult, demanding and pertinacious’ son.”

Siddiqui hit headlines in 2016 for his negligence claim against Oxford University. The Brasenose College modern history graduate had argued that “inadequate” teaching prevented him pursuing a career as a solicitor at a US law firm or as a high-earning tax barrister. Siddiqui, who graduated with a 2:1 in June 2000, claimed loss of earnings amounting to at least £1 million.

His claim was dismissed in the High Court in 2018, with the judge saying he was not convinced the university’s teaching was “negligently inadequate”. Siddiqui faced a legal bill of up to £75,000 it was reported at the time.

Legal Cheek was unable to reach Siddiqui for comment.