University of Bristol v Dr. Robert Abrahart [2024] EWHC 299 (KB)

Case Title and Citation:

University of Bristol v Dr. Robert Abrahart [2024] EWHC 299 (KB)

Court Name and Bench:

The High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division

Date of judgement:

14 February 2024

Parties involved:

The University of Bristol (Appellant/Defendant):
The University of Bristol is the educational institution where Natasha Abrahart was enrolled as a second-year student in the MSci degree program in Physics. ​ 

Dr. Robert Abrahart (Claimant/Respondent):
Dr. Robert Abrahart is the father of Natasha Abrahart and the administrator of her estate, which allows him to bring a claim against the University.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (Intervener):
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) intervened in the case by providing written submissions. ​ The EHRC supported the Claimant’s position and emphasized the importance of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. It provided technical guidance and legal arguments to assist the court in interpreting the law. ​

Facts of the case

Natasha Abrahart was a 20-year-old second-year physics student at the University of Bristol who suffered from depression and Social Anxiety Disorder, which constituted a disability under the Equality Act 2010. This severely impacted her ability to participate in oral assessments, including interviews and a laboratory conference required for a mandatory module she took as part of her Physics Course.  ​By December 2017, university staff recognized that she has mental health issues affecting her ability to complete oral assessments. ​ However, despite this, no formal adjustments were made to the oral assessment requirements. She also struggled to engage with the university’s processes for obtaining support due to her social anxiety and did not complete a Disability Support Summary (DSS), which was required by the university to formalize adjustments. In February 2018, she attempted suicide and disclosed her struggles to university staff. ​ Whilst she was referred to the NHS Crisis Team, she continued to face pressure from the oral assessment requirements. ​However, on 30 April 2018, the day of the laboratory conference presentation, she took her own life. ​

Her father, Dr. Robert Abrahart, alleged that the university unlawfully discriminated against her under sections 15 (discrimination arising from disability), 19 (indirect discrimination), and 20 (failure to make reasonable adjustments) of the Equality Act 2010. ​ He also claimed negligence due to the university’s failure to make adjustments. 

The County Court found that the university breached its duties under the Equality Act by failing to make reasonable adjustments to the oral assessment requirements, which caused substantial disadvantage to Ms. Abrahart and damages of £50,000 were awarded for pain, suffering, and injury to feelings. ​ However, the negligence claim was dismissed.​

The university appealed to the High Court, arguing that it lacked sufficient knowledge of Ms. Abrahart’s disability and that oral assessments were a “competence standard” exempt from the duty to make reasonable adjustments. ​ 

Issues raised:

This case raised several issues: 

• Whether the University of Bristol breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. This issue was looked at particularly in relation to oral assessments and whether or not the oral assessments were a “competence standard” exempt from adjustment or merely methods of assessment subject to adjustment.
• The court also considered whether the university treated Ms. Abrahart unfavourably because of something arising from her disability as she continued being marked down or given penalty marks for poor performance and non-attendance, which could be in breach of Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
• Whether the university had actual or constructive knowledge of Ms. Abrahart’s disability and its effects, as required under Section 15(2) of the Equality Act 2010.
• Whether the adjustments proposed by the Claimant (e.g., removing oral requirements, written alternatives, smaller venues) were reasonable and would have mitigated disadvantage.
• Whether the university owed Ms. Abrahart a common law duty of care to protect her from harm, including harm arising from its assessment methods.
• Whether the university breached this duty and whether its actions contributed to Ms. Abrahart’s psychiatric injury and eventual suicide.
• Whether the university’s approach to oral assessments and their reliance on formal processes such as requiring a Disability Support Summary was justified in light of its duty under the Equality Act 2010.

Arguments of the parties: 

Arguments by the University of Bristol (Appellant/Defendant): ​

• The university argued that oral assessments (laboratory interviews and conference presentations) were “competence standards” under Schedule 13 4(2) of the Equality Act 2010 and as such, they were exempt from the duty to make reasonable adjustments. It also  claimed that oral communication is a core competency for professional physicists, and the assessments were designed to test this skill. ​
• The university also contended that it did not have sufficient actual or constructive knowledge of Ms. Abrahart’s disability, particularly its “long-term” nature, as required under section 15(2) of the Equality Act. ​
• It further argued that Ms. Abrahart did not engage with its processes, such as completing a Disability Support Summary (DSS), which would have provided formal evidence of her needs. ​The university also claimed that it had made informal adjustments, such as telling Ms. Abrahart she did not need to speak at the laboratory conference if her contribution was clear.They also argued that further adjustments, such as removing oral assessments or providing written questions in advance, would have undermined academic integrity and fairness to other students. Furthermore, they maintained that adjustments could only be made with proper evidence and due process, which Ms. Abrahart did not provide. ​
• The university also argued that its approach was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including maintaining rigorous academic standards and fairness to all students. ​

Arguments by Dr. Robert Abrahart (Claimant/Respondent): ​

• Dr. Abrahart argued that the oral assessments were methods of assessing knowledge and understanding, not competence standards. ​ The marking criteria did not test oral communication skills directly, and the university’s own documentation did not identify oral proficiency as a mandatory learning outcome for the module.
• He argued that the university failed to act on clear signs of Ms. Abrahart’s mental health struggles, including her inability to engage with its processes due to her social anxiety. ​
• Dr. Abrahart proposed reasonable adjustments, including removing the oral assessment requirement, providing written questions in advance, assessing her in a smaller venue or without peers, and allowing her to communicate via text or remotely. ​​
• He argued that the university’s marking down of Ms. Abrahart’s oral assessments and imposition of penalty marks constituted unfavourable treatment arising from her disability, in breach of section 15 of the Equality Act. ​

Judgment/Final Decision:

The High Court dismissed the University of Bristol’s appeal, affirming the County Court’s decision that the university breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010. The dismissal was due to the university’s failure to make reasonable adjustments to the oral assessment requirements that caused substantial disadvantage to Ms. Abrahart. The court also upheld the award of £50,000 in damages for pain, suffering, and injury to feelings. ​Howecer, The High Court did not express a final view on the negligence claim, as the Equality Act claims were sufficient to uphold the County Court’s order. The judge noted that resolving the negligence claim would require further analysis and potentially a retrial. ​

Legal reasoning/Ratio Decidendi:

The court reasoned that the oral assessments were methods of assessing knowledge and understanding, not “competence standards” exempt from the duty to make reasonable adjustments as the marking criteria did not test oral communication skills directly, and the university’s own documentation did not identify oral proficiency as a mandatory learning outcome for the module. The university had also not justified its failure to make adjustments or its treatment of Ms. Abrahart. ​ The judge cited Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32 to explain the anticipatory nature of the duty to make reasonable adjustments and the principle that disability discrimination may involve more favorable treatment for disabled individuals. He also referenced Gallop v Newport City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1583 to clarify the requirement for actual or constructive knowledge of the facts constituting a disability under section 15(2) which states that a person does not discriminate against a disabled person if they shows that they did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the other person had the disability. The judge also used City of York Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105 to discuss the relationship between reasonable adjustments and justification under section 15(1)(b) which states that a person discriminates against a disabled person if they cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Relevant Comments by the Judge/Obiter Dicta: 

– The judge highlighted that in cases of urgency and severe disability, it may be reasonable for an educational institution to act without formal evidence or processes. ​

Conclusion:

This case underscores the importance safeguarding disabled students against discrimination in higher education. The High Court’s dismissal of the university’s appeal reaffirmed that methods of assessment are subject to reasonable adjustments that can be made to accommodate disabled students without compromising on fairness to other non-disabled students. The judgment clarifies that universities cannot rely solely on rigid processes, especially when they already have actual or constructive knowledge of a student’s disability and its effects. By upholding the County Court’s decision and award of damages, this decision reinforces the principle that unfavourable treatment linked to disability cannot be justified by broad appeals to academic integrity or fairness. Although the negligence claim was left unresolved, the ruling sends a strong message that educational institutions must balance academic standards with their statutory obligations to disabled students, ensuring that vulnerable individuals are not placed at substantial disadvantage or exposed to avoidable harm.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Legislation: 

Equality Act 2010

Case Law: 

Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32

City of York Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105

Gallop v Newport City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1583

University of Bristol v Dr. Robert Abrahart [2024] EWHC 299 (KB)