Abrahart v University of Bristol & its impact on disabled students

(CW: Suicide, depression, mental health)

Natasha Abrahart was a 19-year-old Physics student at the University of Bristol who took her own life in April 2018. Ms Abrahart was suffering from depression and social anxiety disorder before her death as the result of the oral presentation assessment that was part of a lab based module in her degree. In the words of her father Dr Robert Abrahart the judge found the university ‘failed our daughter, broke the law, and contributed to her death’.¹ Had the university followed the requirements of the Equality Act, this tragedy likely could have been avoided.

This case is one of the first times legal action has been taken against a university for disability discrimination against a student. Most disabled university students in 2024 reported their physical and or mental health had suffered as the result of undertaking their degree.²

Disability is defined as a mental or physical impairment that has a substantial long-term impact on a person’s day-to-day activity. Long-term means it has lasted 12 months, is likely to last more than 12 months, or is likely to last an entire lifetime. Substantial means more than minor/ trivial. The Equality and Human Rights Commission states substantial means more than the normal differences in ability that exist amongst people. No diagnosis is required to meet the definition of disability in the Equality Act because the definition focuses on the effect of the impairment, not the cause.

A county court judge in 2022 found that the university had discriminated against Ms Abrahart.³ On appeal, a high court confirmed this decision and provided more clarity as to how the Equality Act applied to university students.⁴

How did the court determine that Ms Abrahart was disabled?

To make a claim under the Equality Act for discrimination, a claimant must meet the definition of disability contained within the act. Mr Justice Linden (the high court judge who heard the appeal) found in Feb 2018, the university knew Ms Abrahart was suffering from harm to her mental health caused by the oral presentations over a long enough period and was discussing the long-term academic impact of her condition. This indicates they knew the condition may last longer than 12 months. As a result, from that point it was clear that Ms Abrahart was disabled under the 2010 act.

Reasonable adjustments:

Reasonable adjustments should be provided for a disabled person where a provision, criteria, or practice (PCP), physical feature, or lack of an auxiliary aid puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with an able-bodied person.⁵ Not providing adjustments is discriminatory.⁶ There is no duty to make reasonable adjustments on a competence standard which is a standard used to establish whether someone has a certain medical, academic or other ability.⁷

The university argued that they were permitted to ensure a formal process for accessing reasonable adjustments created by their regulations was followed before providing adjustments. The high court judge disagreed and pointed out: the regulations of the university ‘are not the law. They were subject to the law, including the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.’⁴ If this were the practice of the university, the regulations may become ‘a PCP if applied strictly which is subject to the duties under the Equality Act including the reasonable adjustment duty’.⁴ Therefore, strict compliance with university policy, may in some cases such as this one, lead to an unreasonable delay in providing adjustments. This highlights the nature of the reasonable adjustment duty- it begins at the point a duty holder becomes aware of a person who has a disability.

Indirect discrimination:

Where a PCP applies to all persons, but it puts those with a disability at a particular disadvantage compared with non-disabled people it is discriminatory.The requirement to complete an oral assessment was a PCP which had a detrimental effect on students with disabilities which precluded them from completing an oral presentation as easily as their able bodied peers.

Discrimination arising from Disability:

The Equality Act prohibits treating someone unfavourably because of something arising from their disability. The low marks were the result of Ms Abrahart’s condition which prevented her from being able to perform in the oral assessment.

There is a possible defence for this form of discrimination. It did not apply because it was not necessary to mark her down to achieve fairness with respect to marking because she could have had reasonable adjustments to the assessment which would have led to an increase in Ms Abrahart’s marks.

In their annual access insights report, Disabled Students UK found almost half of disabled students who responded to their survey still report having received a lower mark on their course due to an assessment being inaccessible to them.² Disabled student satisfaction is still lower than their able-bodied counterparts according to the National Student Survey, a national survey of final year undergraduate students.⁸ As a result, it appears some portion of respondents may have suffered unlawful discrimination since the Abrahart Ruling. TUltimately, this indicates the attitude of universities to disability may not have progressed as significantly since the Abrahart judgment was handed down by the high court.

Despite this, disabled students and their allies continue to demand equal treatment. The family of Ms Abrahart’s are part of a campaign called Forthe100. This campaign aims to establish a duty of care ‘requiring universities to act responsibly and provide education with reasonable care and skill’⁹ This campaign is the result of the county court judgement finding that the university did not owe Miss Abrahart a duty of care because no duty existed at law.

If such a duty was to exist, it would not make universities responsible for instances where students die by suicide instead it requires them to act as other organisations like prisons, schools, employers and hospitals do in this context. For more information on the Forthe100 campaign, please see their website: https://www.forthe100.org.uk

Edit 20/06/2026: There has been significant discussion of whether contract law claims are available to students who bring claims against their universities. Such claims would focus on policies about disability and whether they are implicitly included in the terms of the contracts that govern the relationships between students and their universities. This is part of a claim brought by Mr Jacob Meagher against Cambridge University.

Mr Meagher was a barrister and PhD student whose legal claims focus on the University failing to provide him with adequate support for his disability in the oral examination element of his PhD.¹⁰ He has brought a claim under the Equality Act and a claim under contract law focused on the university not implementing its own policies on disability support. For more, please see this post by the blog The Journal of Neurodiversity in Law: https://neurodiversityinlaw.substack.com/p/meagher-v-cambridge-case-analysis-disability-discrimination.