The next wave of university Covid litigation is no longer theoretical. More than 290,000 former students have indicated an intention to bring claims against universities across the UK, and pre-action letters have already landed with at least 36 institutions. With limitation deadlines now approaching, more universities are likely to be drawn in very soon.
The reality universities faced – and are facing now
The claims have gathered momentum following UCL’s February 2026 settlement with around 6,000 students, reportedly valued at approximately £21 million. The settlement related to teaching delivered during the Covid lockdowns, but UCL did not admit liability. In its statement, UCL said settlement avoided “diverting valuable resources away from teaching, research, and supporting [their] students”, while maintaining that staff acted quickly, followed government guidance, and worked diligently in unprecedented circumstances.
That context matters. Every university was operating under the same rapidly changing restrictions, trying to protect staff and students while preserving teaching, research and degree progression. Universities UK International has emphasised that institutions followed government guidance and adapted quickly so students could complete their studies.
The legal issues for universities
The university Covid claims are brought on the basis that universities breached their contracts with students, failed to provide education services with reasonable skill and care in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and/or relied on standard terms that were unfair to students, also contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Each claim raises factual questions about the universities’ contracts, how teaching was delivered during Covid lockdowns, and the timetabling and contact hours implications for students. The legal questions will need to examine what was fair and reasonable in the context of the Covid lockdowns, particularly when moving teaching online was how every university in the country complied with government restrictions on gatherings. At several points during the pandemic, in-person teaching would itself have been unlawful.
Where claims instead focus on the fairness of terms giving universities discretion over how a course is delivered, there is an argument that such terms are not unfair at all. That flexibility is what allowed universities to keep operating lawfully through an unforeseen and evolving public health emergency, rather than something inserted to exploit a weaker bargaining position; without it, the contracts themselves might arguably have been frustrated by the pandemic, an outcome unlikely to have served students any better.
Before any Consumer Rights Act claim can succeed, a claimant must first establish that they were a consumer for the purposes of the Act, meaning someone acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside their trade, business, craft or profession. That is rarely contentious for undergraduates. It may, however, be a more useful line of enquiry for universities in relation to postgraduate students, whose consumer status is less clear-cut.
There are also the questions of causation and loss; what losses can actually be attributed to any alleged failures by universities? It is difficult, evidentially, to separate distress said to flow from a university’s own decisions from distress caused by the pandemic more generally, which makes claims for non-financial loss hard to sustain.
Can universities plead limitation?
Limitation is now a live issue. Claims relating to the 2020/21 academic year are likely to start expiring from September 2026, six years after the alleged breach, so claimant firms are likely to move quickly. But the risk will not disappear overnight: some claims may relate to disruption in 2021/22 and could remain in time until 2028.
Will universities face group claims or multiple individual claims?
Hamon v UCL shows that these claims can raise common issues capable, in principle, of group litigation treatment. The court accepted that a Group Litigation Order was available because the claims turned on a common form of student contract, but declined to make one because test cases and existing case management were sufficient. Future claims may instead be framed as omnibus claims under CPR 7.3, but only where they can be conveniently disposed of together.
Because the UCL claims settled shortly before trial, universities still lack clear guidance on how courts will manage these claims at scale.
What should universities be doing?
Preparation for anticipated claims is key. Universities should be looking back to remember and evidence what happened during lockdowns. What decisions were made? How were those decisions communicated to students? Were those decisions reviewed as circumstances changed over time? An audit trail of the decision-making process will be a vital resource for any future claim.
Universities that have not yet received a pre-action letter should not assume they are outside the Student Group Claim. With the September 2026 limitation deadline approaching, we expect the claimants’ representatives to move quickly to bring in further institutions. It is also worth reviewing relevant insurance cover at an early stage, and engaging with sector bodies such as Universities UK, which are helping to coordinate a consistent response across the sector.
Early legal advice is crucial in the handling of university Covid claims. Responding to pre-action letters requires a strategic approach. Early legal guidance can help assess the risks of the claim, assess potential defences, identify the best strategy for resolving the dispute, and reduce the risk of unnecessary costs or adverse legal outcomes whilst considering the efficient use of university resources. The earlier legal advice is sought, the more scope there is to influence how matters proceed, including potentially avoiding litigation altogether.
Recognising disruption, resisting liability
While it feels like a lifetime ago, it is difficult to forget the unprecedented and uncertain times in 2020 which lie at the heart of these claims. It was a rapidly changing landscape which caused disruption across all sections of society, and which has had a lasting impact on the way we work, learn and interact with one another.
Universities do not need to accept that these events amounted to a legal failure in order to recognise the disruption they caused, and a well-evidenced, well-managed response to a pre-action letter is not inconsistent with acknowledging that difficult period.
How can we help?
If your institution has received a pre-action letter, or you would like to discuss your readiness for these claims more generally, please get in touch with a member of our Education team.
Lucy O’Brien is a Legal Director specialising in public and administrative law, with 17 years’ experience advising public bodies, charities, schools, universities, campaign groups, and individu... Read More
Joanna is a Trainee Solicitor in our Commercial team. Joanna studied law at King’s College London, graduating top of the 2019 LL.B.... Read More
