Bristol University ordered to pay £50,000 following a student suicide
(Abrahart v. The University of Bristol)
26 May 2022
An extremely sad case has been widely reported in the media arising out of the tragic suicide of Natasha Abrahart. This case highlights the importance of the Equality Act 2010. The case was brought by Dr Abrahart on behalf of his daughter against the University of Bristol. Dr Abrahart brought three claims under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) for disability discrimination and also a claim in negligence under the Fatal Accidents Act 1974. The claimant argued that the University had moral and legal responsibility for Miss Abrahart’s psychological decline and suffering leading to her death.
In summary, Miss Abrahart was a second-year Physics student at the University of Bristol in the autumn of 2017. She had significant mental health problems and experienced depressive and social anxiety disorder. As part of her course, Miss Abrahart was required to complete oral post laboratory interviews and participate in a conference in which she would have to deliver an oral presentation with a group of her peers, these constituted marked assessments. She attended her first assessed interview on 24 October but was unable to answer any questions. Her performance raised concern with her Professor who emailed Miss Abrahart’s Personal Academic Tutor. Miss Abrahart did not attend class the following day and was absent for the next few interview assessments. In early 2018 Miss Abrahart carried out several suicide attempts and disclosed one of these in an email to the Student Administration Manager for the School of Physics. On 30 April 2018, the day that Miss Abrahart was due to deliver an oral presentation with her peers during the assessed conference, she took her own life, aged twenty..
The claims under the Equality Act
His Honour Judge Alex Ralton rejected the University’s claim that it did not have knowledge of Miss Abrahart’s disability, stating that from October 2017 her anxiety was physically discernible ‘without expert technical skill’. The University’s argument that it was not under a duty to make reasonable adjustments, as the oral assessments constituted a competency standard in Miss Abrahart’s physics course and thus fell within the exception outlined in paragraph 4 (2) of schedule 13 of the EqA, likewise failed as the Judge found: “that the fundamental purpose of the assessments was to elicit… answers to questions…following the experiments and it is… obvious that such a process does not automatically require face to face oral interaction and there are other ways of achieving the same”. The Judge noted that while ideas of adjustments were “floated” around by the University “none were implemented”. He stated that adjustments such as ‘removing the need for oral assessment altogether and or; providing written questions in advance’ would have been reasonable. The Judge also emphasised that the duty to provide reasonable adjustments is anticipatory and it is not the responsibility of disabled students to identify the adjustments that they require. The Judge, therefore, concluded that the University had breached its duties to make reasonable adjustments in the way it assessed Miss Abrahart. He also found that the University was responsible for indirect and direct discrimination against Miss Abrahart as she was treated unfavorably because of her disability.
The claim in Negligence
The Judge dismissed the claimant’s argument that the University had a duty of care to their students to take reasonable steps to avoid and not cause injury and harm. Citing Robinson v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police, the Judge established that the law of negligence does not generally impose duties to provide other people with benefits including the prevention of harm. The only exception to this would be when there has been a voluntary assumption of responsibility to prevent harm. He found that no such relationship arose between Miss Abrahart and the University on commencing or during her studies, as Miss Abrahart was not in the care or control of the University beyond its rules. However, the Judge determined that if there had been a relevant duty of care, it would have been breached by the University’s treatment of Miss Abrahart.
The Judge ordered the University to pay damages of £50,518, finding that Miss Abrahart’s suffering was “serious and … continuous”. These damages reflect the injury to Natasha’s feelings, the deterioration in her mental health caused by the University, and funeral costs.
Lessons to Consider
This is a tragic case but there are very important lessons. The first is that duties under EqA are anticipatory. This means that the needs of those who are or may be, disabled must be fully considered. Schools should be proactively considering needs. The second is the importance of fully considering adjustments to policy. While academic issues may arise, there should be full and detailed consideration of reasonable adjustments, fully involving the student, at all relevant times. Finally, while the Judge found that there was no duty of care, for schools there is a well-established duty of care which is for schools to act as a reasonable parent would.
Comments from the judge pose questions to school leaders.
Do our school assessment systems need to be adjusted for some individuals to “achieve the same” goal? Does all Teacher Assessment (TA) ensure that attainment and progress is being appropriately measured and recorded so that teaching is well matched to the needs of all, irrespective of disabilities? Schools have been making adjustments to teacher assessment for many years. Evidence of leaders monitoring this adjustment may prove invaluable and may also highlight any inconsistencies in effectiveness across the whole school. Such monitoring should include discussion with pupils.
Mandatory equality policies need to be “implemented” and experienced beyond the written equality objectives that must be published online.