is it common to be given an outright failure on a first submission, after being evaluated on the first year with excellent mark, after more than 4 hours examination in the UK? Is it common at UK graduate education that examiners and supervisory team arrange for examination to fail (collusion)?

Neither is common, but that does not mean it doesn't happen. As for collusion, that seems highly unlikely- you and your supervisor would have agreed on the examiners (one internal one external I'm assuming), and so unless they meet beforehand with the sole intention of failing a student (which at least in my uni is impossible because each examiner writes an independent assessment of the thesis/outcome and submits it to the department prior to the viva), that is unlikely to happen.

Without giving away personal information, what's happened?

Collusion as you've described, "Failed Graduate" would be difficult.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

The Degree Committee first appointed an acting supervisor for the examination procedures, later denied it and finally "no comment". The internal report ("independent") was written by a previous supervisor (who had patented the results), proven by the literary fingerprint. Nobody explains who was in charge of selecting the examiners. And the whole academic history has been physically deleted. Can an oral examination happen without an appointed supervisor? The "independent reports" were not provided before the oral examination but later. It looks like they fooled everybody. But to us is quite serious offense to falsify an oral examination at UK Institution. Are there known cases where the documentation of a viva has been changed during the following days?

Unless it's written into the documentation (contract, agreement, etc.) you signed at the beginning of the PhD, then the data from it should be your intellectual property. How can this previous supervisor patent it?

It reads as though you've had a change in supervision team. I therefore gather there's been problems with this first supervisor.

The above all seems very confused and irregular. Current supervisors normally approach internal and external examiners in the UK (with or without consulting the student), the external examiner providing a theoretically independent perspective. In practice, I've found that the external is normally fairly well known to the supervisors as they need someone working in the same field.

If you believe there have been irregularities, then I would look at what evidence you have and look at appealing against the process, exhausting all internal options first before going possibly as a very last resort to the University Ombudsman. Note any appeal should be against the process rather than the result, with the best you can hope for being re-examination by fresh examiners. Some people have successfully appealed at various Universities in the past, though I wouldn't hold your breath.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

I signed a written documentation, contract and agreement with the UNV, at the beginning. But the supervisory team had kept hidden a simultaneous grant with the same name where they were patenting all my results. I just found out at the end. Obviously this involves cooperation from other internal officials. This is why they failed my PhD, they had in order to claim my work is useless although they got plenty of money. The rest is just a "smoke screen".
But my question is how many people in UK finds in this kind of situation and if it is common currency in UK Higher Educational system for this to happen, in particular in the higher top range of UNVs. It is quite important issue with many collateral implications. My worry is the denial of the UNV because then who can trust UK educational system?

Have your examiners declared you fail or are these just your apprehensions? You may need to talk to and be in communication with your supervisor and examiners to sort these matters out.

The UNV claims that disputes about academic judgement are not taken into account and since both examiners are "academic people" then there is no grounds for complain at all. And despite the facts of collusion they claim that there is no sufficient evidence for appeal or review of the case at any level. I was recommended not to contact the examiners directly and supervisor denied being the supervisor of the examination which doesn't make any sense. I am referring to Oxbridge.

There is something wrong somewhere in this whole thing. You must be in communication with you supervisor and examiners and seek the reasons of failure, if this is really the case you think.

I have to admit I'm not making sense of the above.

"FailedGraduate", give yourself a couple of days then try to explain more calmly what you believe has happened in chronological order.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Yes, Graduate, make your statement more clear. Make it a bit beefy.

Oh very funny!!!

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

P.S. I'm actually quite skinny. :-)