The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Reasonable accommodation for disabled university students: University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart [2024] EWHC 299 (KB)
Open accessAbstract
Natasha Abrahart was a physics student at the University of Bristol. She was suffering from depression and social anxiety disorder, which seriously impacted her ability to partake in oral assessments. Eventually, Natasha sadly took her own life. Her father, Dr Robert Abrahart, as personal representative and estate administrator, sued the University of Bristol for negligence and breach of sections 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010, read with section 91(2)(a) and/or (f) of the same Act. 1 Under such provisions, universities have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments and support, in educational provision and assessments, to disabled students, defined by section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 as ‘a physical or mental impairment’ which has ‘a substantial and long-term adverse effect’ on the ability to ‘carry out normal day-to-day activities’. However, Schedule 13, para 4(2), to the Equality Act 2010 exempts those assessments which constitute a competency standard, defined as ‘an academic, medical or other standard applied for the purpose of determining whether or not a person has a particular level of competence or ability’. 2
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This case comment analyses the High Court's ruling in *University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart* [2024] EWHC 299 (KB), which substantially confirmed the County Court's finding that the University breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled physics student who later took her own life. The authors argue the appeal clarifies when universities are deemed to know of a student's disability and how far they may rely on internal procedures, but leaves the competency-standard question unresolved.
Key findings
- The High Court confirmed the University of Bristol was in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, holding that higher education institutions have an *anticipatory* duty to proactively put adjustments in place; knowledge of disability was not required for the duty to exist, though the level of knowledge is relevant to whether a particular adjustment was reasonable (Linden J at [157]–[158], [162]).
- Obiter, the High Court moved the point at which the university was found to have knowledge of Natasha Abrahart's disability from October 2017 (the County Court's finding, at [116]) to 1–13 February 2018, when the Physics senior tutor repeated his request that she apply for adjustments and directly alerted Disability Services ([239]).
- The Court held it was open to the County Court to conclude that the oral assessment did not constitute a competency standard ([201]–[202]); Linden J disagreed with the County Court's formalistic reasoning (that Natasha could have passed the module without the interviews) but added that this fact "did tend to undermine the University's argument that a core competency of a professional scientist is the ability to present results orally" ([201]).
- The negligence claim was refused: Linden J found the claim was not fully argued at trial, that provision of student support services did not fall into a special category of relationship giving rise to a duty of care, and that the claimant could not satisfy the burden of proof, so the matter would require a separate re-trial ([270(ii)], [270(iv)], [5]).
Methods
- Doctrinal case comment analysing two judgments: *Abrahart v University of Bristol* [2022] 5 WLUK 260 (CC) and *University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart* [2024] EWHC 299 (KB), read against the Equality Act 2010 (ss 6(1), 15, 19, 20, 91(2)(a)/(f); Sch 13 para 4).
- The authors reconstruct the facts of Natasha Abrahart's module (Practical Physics 203: laboratory interviews 45%, formal report 20%, computing 25%, conference presentation 10%; pass mark 40%) and trace the chronology of staff contacts from October 2017 to April 2018.
- Analysis is organised around two themes: (a) knowledge of disability and reliance on internal procedures, and (b) the competency-standard exemption, engaging with commentary by Burin and Atrey, Cameron et al, and Tyler.
Limitations
- The authors state the judgment "still leaves open doubts with regard to the criteria to establish when an assessment constitutes a competency standard," and that legal engagement with the question has been limited, leaving students and staff unclear on rights and responsibilities.
- The authors acknowledge their own disagreement with Burin and Atrey, who maintain the High Court "significantly lowered the bar" for breach of reasonable adjustment obligations; the authors argue the Court merely reaffirmed the duty to act on reasonably clear signs of disability.
- Evident from the text: this is a case comment rather than empirical research, so its claims rest on the authors' reading of the judgments and secondary commentary; the negligence question was expressly left unresolved by the High Court and is not settled here.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
17 Own interpretation · 10 Sources not found · 3 Own result · 2 No basis given
In the paper
“On the question of the competency standard, Linden J qualified it as a factual issue, and concluded that, considering the available evidence, it was open to the County Court to conclude that, in the present case, the oral assessment did not constitute a competency standard.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem was rather that, even when, in February, they had extensive knowledge of Natasha's disability issues, the competent university roles failed to act, due to the fact that the student had not completed the relevant internal procedures.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In light of this, it is likely that in most cases universities will still be able to rely on their internal processes.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Linden J accepted the reasoning of the County Court, according to which the fact that the student had not engaged with relevant university procedures was not necessarily a valid excuse for the institution's inaction.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In his High Court judgment, Linden J stressed how higher education institutions have an anticipatory duty to proactively put in place, in drafting their policies and structuring their activities, all those adjustments which may be reasonably required to prevent even discrimination issues not yet arisen.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In addition, there would be no need for a formalised diagnosis, sufficing a general lay perception of some issues plausibly caused by a long-term condition.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the appeal ruling by the High Court, while confirming the first instance judgment, seems to have partly delimited its implications.”
- Also stated in: § 2. Reflections · hedged
“While substantially confirming the conclusions of the County Court, the High Court decision seems to partly limit their reach.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
“The High Court decision in the Abrahart case, while substantially confirming that of the County Court, partly delimits some of its more controversial implications.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 2. Reflections · hedged
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
In the paper
“Obiter, the High Court moved the time at which the university was found to have knowledge of Natasha's disability to 1–13 February 2018, that is when the Physics senior tutor repeated to the student his request that she apply for reasonable adjustments and then directly alerted Disability Services.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The High Court did not really address this concern.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The aspect probably most worthy of reflection is that none of the actors involved in the Abrahart case seemed to contemplate arrangements that might have helped the student to still participate in her vivas by overcoming her difficulties.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem seemed rather that, while waiting for these formalities, the institution appeared completely paralysed and lecturers kept penalising the student in terms of marking, despite strong elements suggesting that was possibly unfair.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Anyway, in disciplines with a more obvious connection between oral presentation skills and success in professional roles, it might be easier to present vivas as a competency standard.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In light of this, the approach adopted here appears closer to the way in which universities, including Bristol, already operate.”
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Indeed, as further remarked in the High Court judgment, university policies are not law and are themselves subject to the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, being susceptible to being declared discriminatory.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [15]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not being helped to exercise these skills might reduce a student's career opportunities.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Natasha Abrahart's was an exceptional case, in which there were particularly clear signs that the student was experiencing a serious disability rendering her unable to seek her own support.”
boostedstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Besides, the ruling of the High Court did not necessarily exclude that the university was per se entitled to seek medical evidence and a formal decision on which to base the reasonable adjustments.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Therefore, knowledge of disability was not required for the existence of such duty, though the level of knowledge would be relevant in judging whether it was reasonable to expect that the university would have implemented a particular adjustment.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [12]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Court simply reaffirmed that universities have a duty to act whenever there are reasonably clear signs that a certain student struggles due to a disability, and cannot hide behind their internal bureaucracy.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This can be problematic in a moment in which the rise of generative AI seems to undermine the reliability of traditional coursework.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we consider that the main purpose of universities is not only to award degrees, but to make students progress through high quality education, enabling some to avoid a certain assessment could be seen as taking away a valuable learning opportunity.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The main purpose of universities is not only to award degrees, but to make students progress through high quality education.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in many cases it is still possible to find alternatives to oral assessments which safeguard the integrity of the evaluation, such as supervised written exams.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This conclusion seemed to place a heavy burden on universities and their academic and administrative personnel, apparently requiring them to recognise, report and act upon any even minimal hint of a possible disability, as at that point their entire institution would have been presumed to know.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only, the enforcement of such formalities needs to consider the specific context.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst the attention brought to competency standards and their relationship to reasonable adjustments is a positive development, the Abrahart judgment is unlikely to really improve this uncertain situation, as it fails to provide articulate and coherent practical clarifications on this crucial point.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Besides, many physics graduates go into careers in areas like teaching, finance, telecommunications or compliance, which require good interpersonal skills.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legal engagement with such a question has so far been limited, creating a lack of clarity for both students and staff at universities as to their rights, responsibilities and expectations.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Until the mentioned gap in both guidance and understanding is closed, all parties involved in the higher education of disabled students will remain vulnerable to confusion, and unfair and even potentially tragic outcomes.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The judgment provides clarity as to the point at which universities are required to put in place reasonable adjustments for disabled students and to what extent they can rely on internal procedures to evaluate entitlement to such adjustments.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it still leaves open doubts with regard to the criteria to establish when an assessment constitutes a competency standard.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, being effective in oral communication may be increasingly important also for physicists, especially to ascend to leadership roles.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These practices are increasingly recommended by pedagogical literature and can be instrumental in positively challenging students and providing them with opportunities to develop and test important skills which might be outside of their comfort zone without putting excessive pressure on them.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The authors state this as an assumption.
The main purpose of universities is not only to award degrees, but to make students progress through high quality education.
“If we consider that the main purpose of universities is not only to award degrees, but to make students progress through high quality education”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ References
“35 Cameron et al, above n 28, at 218.”
§ References
“28 Abrahart v University of Bristol (CC), above n 2, at [24]–[25].”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 2. Reflections
“In this regard, we do not completely agree with Bury and Atrey, who maintain that here the High Court has significantly lowered the bar for being found in breach of reasonable adjustment obligations.”
§ References
“26 AK Burin and S Atrey ‘Unleashing the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty: University of Bristol v Abrahart (EHRC intervening) [2024] EWHC 299 (KB)’ (2024) 24(1) International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 1.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ References
“34 Burin and Atrey, above n 27, at 8.”
§ References
“27 H Cameron et al ‘Equality law obligations in higher education: reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 in assessment of students with unseen disabilities’ (2019) 39(2) Legal Studies 204.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ References
“8 Abrahart v University of Bristol (CC), above n 2, at [120]–[141].”
§ References
“2 Equality Act 2010, Sch 13, para 4(3).”
Citations
Cites
Cameron, H., Coleman, B., Hervey, T., Rahman, S., & Rostant, P. (2019) · Legal Studies · doi:10.1017/lst.2018.31 · Cited by 19
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From paradise lost to paradise regained: A compassionate retuning of assessed seminars
Stephen, S. (2025) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.70069
Chalmers, K., Irons, A. D., & Phippen, A. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-34057-4.00006-7 · Cited by 1
Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education
Martin, N. C. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197852668.003.0002
Metadata
- Authors
- De Sabbata, K., & Pearson, A. V.
- Affiliations
- Keele University
- Keele University (GB)
- Venue
- Legal Studies
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2025-02-07
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 303-308
- ISSN
- 0261-3875 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-121X
- OpenAlex
- W4407255169
- Semantic Scholar
- a6b8fc5df552add42467487416d1ab93ab451a1e
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 20.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Legal Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
- Keywords
- reasonable accommodation, students with disabilities, Equality Act 2010, oral examination, psychiatric disability, depression, social anxiety disorder, competency standards, negligence, University of Bristol
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-20, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-20 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
