糖心Vlog

Bristol loses High Court appeal in Natasha Abrahart case

Judge upholds ruling that university discriminated against student by failing to adjust how she was assessed 

Published on
February 14, 2024
Last updated
February 14, 2024
University of Bristol

The University of Bristol has lost its High Court appeal against a ruling that it contributed to the death of a student by failing to adjust its assessments to account for her social anxiety disorder.

Natasha Abrahart, 20, took her own life on 30 April 2018, the day she was due to give a presentation聽in a 329-seat lecture theatre as part of a laboratory module for her undergraduate physics degree.

In May 2022, the university was ordered by a judge to pay 拢50,000 in damages to Natasha鈥檚 parents, Robert and Margaret Abrahart, after they successfully argued the institution had聽breached the Equality Act聽by failing to make adequate adjustments so their daughter could participate in her course.

Bristol had argued that the 鈥渁bility to explain laboratory work orally, to defend it and to answer questions on it鈥 was 鈥渁 core competency of a professional scientist鈥 and聽took the case to appeal.聽But, in a 62-page judgment handed down on 14 February, Mr Justice Linden found that the university had failed on all seven of its grounds.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

The judge agreed with the original ruling that there were 鈥渙ther ways鈥 of assessing Ms Abrahart鈥檚 ability to understand the experiments that did not require face-to-face interaction.

Ms Abrahart, who suffered from anxiety and panic attacks, had been unable to follow the university鈥檚 policies and procedures to apply for adjustments and Mr Linden said there was 鈥渘othing surprising鈥 in the finding that Bristol 鈥渟eemed to simply stall鈥 when due process was not followed.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

A member of staff at the university had been made aware of Ms Abrahart鈥檚 鈥渟elf-harm and attempted suicide鈥 in the months before she died and the judge said there was 鈥渃learly was a need鈥 for that staff member 鈥渢o draw the attention of key people to the seriousness of Ms Abrahart鈥檚 situation, with or without her consent, and for immediate action to be taken to remove the pressure of the forthcoming laboratory interviews and conference from her shoulders鈥.

Reacting to the ruling, Dr Abrahart, a retired university lecturer, said it had 鈥渂een a long and painful journey to reach this point, and the University of Bristol has fought us every step of the way鈥.

鈥淭he result is that we now have a judgment from the High Court confirming what we always knew to be true. The University of Bristol failed our daughter, broke the law and contributed to her death,鈥 he said.

鈥淭heir arguments that they did not know enough about Natasha鈥檚 problems, or that they hadn鈥檛 received the right paperwork, or that fairness to other students meant they couldn鈥檛 make the adjustments she needed, have now all failed for a second time.

鈥淚t is now for the University of Bristol, and higher education institutions across the country, to get their houses in order.鈥

Gus Silverman, a solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn who represented the family, said the ruling 鈥渆stablishes a powerful legal precedent鈥 and was 鈥渁 reminder that universities cannot shirk their duties to make reasonable adjustments to potentially discriminatory policies on the grounds that a disabled student has not followed a particular bureaucratic process鈥.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Considering a separate appeal brought by the Abraharts that the university had a 鈥渄uty of care鈥 to its students 鈥 something that was dismissed in the original case 鈥 Mr Linden concluded that it was 鈥渘ot necessary鈥 for him to 鈥渆xpress any view, one way or the other鈥.

He said it would not 鈥渂e wise for me to express a view for various reasons鈥 including that the 鈥渋ssue is one of potentially wide application and significance鈥.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking outside the court, Mrs Abrahart appealed directly to Evelyn Welch, Bristol鈥檚 vice-chancellor, and said: 鈥淲e don鈥檛 need, or want, your sympathy. We want action.

鈥淲e want you to read this judgment very carefully and follow its lessons,鈥 Mrs Abrahart added. 鈥淲e want you to think how you would wish your son or daughter to be treated at university if they were disabled and needed their rights protecting.

鈥淲e are still willing to sit down with you. Listen to what we have to say. And finally, at last, five years and nine months after Natasha鈥檚 death, say sorry to us. We鈥檙e waiting.鈥

In a statement, Professor Welch said: 鈥淣atasha鈥檚 death is a tragedy 鈥 I am deeply sorry for the Abrahart family鈥檚 loss.

鈥淎t Bristol, we care profoundly for all our students and their mental health and well-being is a priority and is at the heart of everything we do. We continue to develop and improve our services and safeguards to support our students who need help.

鈥淚n appealing, we were seeking clarity for the higher education sector around the application of the Equality Act when staff do not know a student has a disability, or when it has yet to be diagnosed. We will work with colleagues across the sector as we consider the judgment.鈥

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

鈥 If you鈥檙e having suicidal thoughts or feel you need to talk to someone, a free helpline is available around the clock in the UK on 116123, or you can email聽jo@samaritans.org. In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. In聽Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13聽11聽14. Other international suicide helplines can be found at聽.

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (2)

Quite extraordinary that the judge should think that the 鈥渁bility to explain laboratory work orally, to defend it and to answer questions on it鈥 was not 鈥渁 core competency of a professional scientist鈥... This is precisely the sort of soft skill that employers keep telling universities that they want to see in STEM graduates and where there has been a lot of curriculum development and innovation.
There is always a balance that can be reached. For example, if a student finds the thought of standing up in front of the whole class to explain their ideas absolutely petrifying, maybe they can be permitted to display their understanding to a tutor in private. That would meet the requirement to display the 鈥渁bility to explain laboratory work orally, to defend it and to answer questions on it鈥 but in a less stressful manner for an individual student. This of course does require the student to engage with their university's support services and explain what their issues are. For some people, that can be a barrier in itself, they just are not good at articulating the issues or even admitting that they have issues. As I keep telling students "We cannot support you if we don't know what help you need". We get emails from our student support service indicating for each student on their books what adjustments are required, and students on their books are also tagged on class lists so when announcing assessments it's easy to see who will need an adjustment and even to discuss any assessment with a student for whom it might be an undue challenge so as to devise a suitable alternative for them.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT