Former students from a controversial hypnosis degree course are suing a university for allegedly failing to check the quality of the now-defunct programme.

Fifteen students who signed up to the course in clinical hypnosis validated by St Mary¡¯s 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ, Twickenham will take their legal action to the High Court next month, almost four years after the programme was terminated midway through their studies.

The claimants ¨C many of whom are seeking more than ?100,000 each in compensation ¨C say St Mary¡¯s was negligent in how it validated the course, which was run by a hypnosis training company called Brief Strategic Therapy & Clinical Hypnosis (BST) Foundation.

This validation agreement meant that St Mary¡¯s owed a ¡°duty of care¡± to the students, even if they were not taught by the university directly, according to court papers for the hearing, which is due to start on 14 July.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Students on the course, which ended in September 2012 when St Mary¡¯s terminated its agreement with BST after the publication of a damning report by the Quality Assurance Agency, say they are entitled to damages for loss of earnings from not being able to work as hypnotherapists, as well as ¡°distress and disappointment¡± caused by the course¡¯s collapse.

St Mary¡¯s rejects the claim, saying the students were not enrolled at the university and it ¡°did not owe any contractual¡­duty to the claimants in respect of its validation of [its] courses¡±, according to its defence statement.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

It also rejects claims related to misrepresentation in course literature, saying the BST Foundation was solely responsible for its materials, adding that ¡°any claim¡­ought to be brought against BST, rather than [St Mary¡¯s]¡±.

Much of the negligence claim is set to centre on the individual who was in charge of checking the course¡¯s academic standards at the time, Tig Calvert, who was then a St Mary¡¯s psychology lecturer.

However, Dr Calvert was also employed by the BST Foundation as the course¡¯s director, in effect meaning that she was vetting her own course, the court papers suggest.

Her employment by St Mary¡¯s means the university is ¡°liable either directly or vicariously for [her] actions¡± as course director, the claimants¡¯ statement says.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

This includes the university¡¯s failure to recognise that the limited teaching hours offered by the BST Foundation meant that the course could not constitute an honours degree, court papers state.

Teaching was held on ¡°no more than 12 Saturdays¡± per year in groups of around 30 students, which was ¡°significantly below¡± what was promised and expected, the claimants say.

To complete the 1,200 hours of teaching and study hours required for an honours degree over three years by QAA guidance ¨C 40 hours a week on average ¨C was also ¡°fundamentally impossible¡± for these part-time students, their statement adds.

St Mary¡¯s denies these claims, and declined to comment on the case when approached by Times Higher Education.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

However, in a sworn statement, Claire Taylor, pro vice-chancellor for academic strategy, said that the ¡°QAA report did not in any way question the academic standards of quality of the programmes¡±.

jack.grove@tesglobal.com