The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 26 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Unleashing the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty: University of B ristol v Abrahart (EHRC intervening) [2024] EWHC 299 (KB)
Open accessAbstract
On 14 February 2024, the High Court upheld the decision of the Bristol County Court in University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart. Ms Abrahart, a physics undergraduate, took her own life in April 2018, the morning before she was meant to deliver an oral presentation. The claim brought by Ms Abrahart’s father was that in failing to remove or adjust the requirement for oral assessments, the University had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. The High Court upheld the discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 while dismissing the claim in negligence on the basis that the University did not owe Ms Abrahart a common law duty of care. This note discusses the contrasting moves made by the High Court in, on the one hand, lowering the bar for finding a breach of the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty, and on the other hand, raising the bar for finding an assessment method to be a ‘competence standard’ set by universities. Although arising in relation to the very specific facts of this case, the implications of the ruling in Abrahart are far reaching.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
This case commentary analyses the High Court's judgment in *University of Bristol v Abrahart* [2024] EWHC 299 (KB), which upheld disability discrimination claims brought after the suicide of physics undergraduate Natasha Abrahart. The authors argue the ruling lowers the bar for breaching the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty while raising the bar for universities claiming an assessment method is a "competence standard."
Key findings
The High Court upheld the County Court's findings under ss.15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010 but declined to rule on the cross-appeal on negligence, so no common law duty of care was established. On s.20, the court held the anticipatory duty can apply to an individual student without a formal diagnosis or reported disability, and that it was breached even though Ms Abrahart declined the adjustment offered (she was told she need not speak at the conference provided her contribution was clear). The court rejected the University's argument that the oral assessments were a "competence standard" under Schedule 13, finding they tested knowledge and comprehension rather than oral communication, partly because the relevant "Intended Learning Outcome" appeared in general physics documentation but not in the Practical Physics 203 course documentation. The authors argue this sets a low bar for breach of the anticipatory duty and a high bar for competence standards, with wide implications for oral assessments in law, doctoral and other professional courses.
Methods
Doctrinal case commentary: the authors analyse the High Court judgment and the underlying County Court decision, tracing the factual chronology of the University's actual or constructive knowledge between October 2017 and April 2018 and the three-step s.20 analysis (PCP; substantial disadvantage; reasonable steps). They situate the ruling against EHRC Technical Guidance, prior competence standard cases (*Burke*, *Islam*, *Koci*) and negligence authorities (*Robinson v West Yorkshire Police*, *Feder & McCamish*). No empirical data or sample; the analysis is legal and comparative.
Limitations
The paper states no formal limitations. Evident from the text: it is a commentary on a first-instance appellate decision rather than a systematic study, and the authors note the negligence question remains unresolved because Linden J declined to determine the cross-appeal, so their critique of the County Court's reliance on *Robinson* is prospective rather than settled. The authors also acknowledge the ruling arose from "very specific and tragic facts," which limits how confidently its implications for other courses can be predicted.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 30 Not checked · 45 Own results and interpretations
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
“Further, the fact that the University had at one point suggested to Ms Abrahart that she need not speak at the laboratory conference, provided she contributed to the presentation in other ways, was considered fatal to the University’s competence standard argument.”
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.
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
“The High Court found that, first, not only was there a duty to make reasonable adjustments but that, second, the duty was not discharged by the University in this case.”
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 relation to the first step, the University’s contention was that the oral assessment requirement did not constitute a ‘PCP’ but instead constituted a ‘competence standard’ under schedule 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The High Court rejected this submission.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites schedule 13 of the Equality Act 2010
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.
- Not matched
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
“On appeal, the University failed to discharge the high burden4 for overturning factual findings.”
plain- 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.
In the paper
“A breach of s.20 of the Equality Act 2010 was thus established.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites s.20 of the Equality Act 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle 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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
33 more claims
Create a free account to see all 75 claims and every source verdict.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- Probably not a substantial claim. 30
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
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
§ Abstract
“The High Court upheld the discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 while dismissing the claim in negligence on the basis that the University did not owe Ms Abrahart a common law duty of care.”
§ Introduction
“Given the fact that the first instance judgment had focused on the Equality Act 2010 and thus did not extensively discuss negligence, together with the fact that any conclusions on the cross-appeal would not affect the level of damages, he declined to determine the cross-appeal.”
Citations
Cites
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(un), U. N. (2009) · European Journal of Health Law · doi:10.18356/d8e7ebd1-en · Cited by 5,239 · cited 1×
“34 The approach may thus be seen as paternalistic and contrary to the disability rights movement ’ s motto ‘ nothing about us without us ’ .”
BackgroundMultivariate extremes and the aggregation of dependent risks: examples and counter-examples
Paul Embrechts, A., Lambrigger, D. D., & Wüthrich, M. V. (2008) · Extremes · doi:10.1007/s10687-008-0071-5 · Cited by 136 · cited 1×
“48 A recent county court decision found that a duty of care existed due to the College ’ s assumption of responsibility to carry out an investigation into allegations of sexual assault between students.”
BackgroundContamin, J.-G. (2020) · Dictionnaire des mouvements sociaux · doi:10.3917/scpo.filli.2020.01.0447 · Cited by 36 · cited 1×
“38 The government responded to their petition saying that it was unnecessary, partly due to the existence of a ‘ general duty of care ’ at common law.”
BackgroundTHE ANTICIPATORY REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT DUTY: REMOVING THE BLOCKAGES?
Lawson, A., & Orchard, M. (2021) · The Cambridge Law Journal · doi:10.1017/s0008197321000568 · Cited by 6 · cited 1×
“’ 32 Yet the University was found to have breached this duty in relation to an individual student without a reported disability; but whose dif fi culties with oral assessment, the County Court and the High Court thought were apparent as disability to the University.”
Background
Cited by
Ross, F., Dommett, E. J., & Byrom, N. (2026) · npj Mental Health Research · doi:10.1038/s44184-026-00196-4 · Cited by 10
Morgan, D. (2026) · Disability & Society · doi:10.1080/09687599.2026.2667528 · Cited by 4
“As Burin and Atrey (2024) observe, the judgment underscored that competence standards cannot be used to disguise discriminatory practices and reinforced the strict anticipatory duty on universities to adjust their methods.”
Shepherd, N. (2024) · Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Review ISSN: 3078-8358 · doi:10.60087/jissr.v1i1.359
Metadata
- Authors
- Burin, A. K., & Atrey, S.
- Affiliations
- Oxford Brookes University (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Burin, Achas K
- Venue
- International Journal of Discrimination and the Law
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-03-23
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 7-18
- ISSN
- 1358-2291 (ISSN-L)
- 2047-9468
- OpenAlex
- W4393115512
- Semantic Scholar
- aab8f0812b88d8bfa83150cf4876353e842d4904
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 5.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Discrimination and the Law (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
- Keywords
- disability discrimination, Equality Act 2010, oral assessment, duty of care, student suicide, higher education, reasonable accommodation
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unleashing the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty: University of B ristol v Abrahart (EHRC intervening) [2024] EWHC 299 (KB). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/13582291241241505
- The paper
- Burin, A. K., & Atrey, S. (2024). Unleashing the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty: University of B ristol v Abrahart (EHRC intervening) [2024] EWHC 299 (KB). International Journal of Discrimination and the Law. https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291241241505
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
