University Of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart (Administrator of the estate of Natasha Abrahart, deceased)

The Court of Appeal (King's Bench Division, Linden J) dismissed the University of Bristol's appeal against findings that it had breached the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments (section 20) and by discriminating arising from disability (section 15), and upheld the County Court's approach to whether the Module assessments were a competence standard under Schedule 13. The judge concluded that the oral elements of Practical Physics 203 were methods of assessment rather than competence standards, so they remained potentially amenable to reasonable adjustments (section 20(3)).

The court emphasised the anticipatory nature of an education provider's duty to make reasonable adjustments under Schedule 13 and held that, given what the School of Physics knew or ought to have known about the student by mid-February 2018, it was reasonable to have put in place alternative assessment arrangements (for example, non-oral means of answering questions or pre-prepared/scripted formats). The University could not rely on delay in obtaining a Disability Support Summary or on procedural formality to justify inaction.

The court also held that discrimination arising from disability under section 15 applied (the University could not show the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim) and considered the indirect discrimination point but did not permit the University to succeed on that ground. The High Court declined to determine final issues on the negligence cross-appeal, noting they raised wider common law questions which were unnecessary to resolve in view of the Equality Act conclusions.

Background and parties. The appeal arose from a County Court judgment (His Honour Judge Ralton with an assessor) that the University of Bristol had unlawfully discriminated against Ms Natasha Abrahart, a second-year physics student who suffered from depression and social anxiety disorder and who died by suicide on the day of a required laboratory conference.

Nature of the claim and relief sought. The claimant (administrator of the deceased's estate) sought declarations and damages under the Equality Act 2010 (sections 15, 19 and 20, read with section 91) for discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments; negligence was pleaded as a separate cause of action. The County Court awarded damages for pain, suffering and injury to feelings and declared statutory breaches. The University appealed; permission was granted in part and Linden J heard the appeal.

Issues framed by the court. The principal issues were (i) whether the oral laboratory interviews and the laboratory conference were a "competence standard" within Schedule 13 such that the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not apply to them; (ii) whether the University knew or ought to have known of the claimant's disability and its effects; (iii) whether the University breached the anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20(3); (iv) whether there was discrimination arising from disability under section 15; (v) the indirect discrimination point under section 19; and (vi) confidentiality and procedural points. The University also sought to challenge the County Court's refusal of the claimant's negligence claim and raised issues of causation.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions. Linden J upheld the County Court's factual and evaluative findings that the oral elements of the Module were methods of assessing knowledge and understanding rather than standalone competence standards; consequently the Schedule 13 exception did not preclude reasonable adjustments. The judge endorsed the principle that, in higher education, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory and that what the institution knew or ought to have known is relevant to the objective reasonableness assessment. On the evidence the court concluded that, by mid-February 2018 at the latest (13 February 2018), the School of Physics had sufficient actual or constructive awareness of a disabling condition affecting oral assessments and that, in those circumstances, the University unreasonably failed to adopt adjustments which had a real prospect of mitigating the student's disadvantage. The county-court findings on breach of sections 20 and 15 were therefore permissible and were not displaced on appeal. The court found the University’s argument that its internal procedures and need for a Disability Support Summary justified delay to be insufficient. The indirect discrimination argument was considered but not allowed to upset the outcome. The court declined to decide the negligence issues finally, observing that they raised distinct and potentially wide-ranging common law questions unnecessary to resolve once the Equality Act remedies remained in force.

Appeal dismissed. Linden J concluded that the County Court was entitled to find that (i) Practical Physics 203's oral assessments were methods of assessment rather than an excluded competence standard under Schedule 13, (ii) the University had or ought to have had sufficient knowledge by mid-February 2018 to engage the duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010, and (iii) it had therefore breached that duty and section 15 (discrimination arising from disability). The High Court refused to disturb the County Court’s evaluative findings as to reasonableness, and declined to determine the negligence issues finally because the statutory findings made such determination unnecessary and because the negligence questions raised wider common law issues requiring fuller argument.

Appeal from Bristol County Court (His Honour Judge Ralton with assessor Mrs Christine Price): reserved judgment handed down 20 May 2022 (County Court). Permission to appeal granted in part by Mrs Justice Cockerill (20 March 2023 and subsequent directions). Appeal heard before Linden J at the High Court (King's Bench Division, Bristol District Registry) on 11-13 December 2023; judgment given 14 February 2024 (Neutral citation [2024] EWHC 299 (KB)).