Higher education institutions - latest update from the courts on duty of care to students

Posted: 03/02/2025

A University of Cambridge PhD candidate is suing the university after he was unsuccessful in his final viva voce oral examination. The case, if it proceeds to trial, may shed some light on the knotty question of when a university owes its students a duty of care.

Jacob Meagher, a law student and practising barrister, issued a claim against the university and six named individuals for disability discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, and also for breach of contract and breach of a common law duty of care (negligence). He alleges various acts of discrimination and victimisation during his PhD programme and, in particular, that the university failed to provide him with an adequate supervisor or advisor for his PhD, and that it failed to implement adjustments that he needed in order to avoid disadvantage in the viva voce because of his disability.

An interim judgment was published in January 2025, after Mr Meagher appealed the case management decisions of a County Court judge. This appeal judgment is not groundbreaking, but it raises some interesting issues for universities.

Claims against the individuals struck out

The first question which concerned the appeal judge was this: was the County Court judge wrong to strike out the claims against the named individuals? The answer was no.

The individuals were all senior staff who were involved in the committees which made the decisions that Mr Meagher objected to. He sought declarations that each of those individuals – as well as the university more broadly – had discriminated against him.

It was accepted that if the claim succeeded, any damages would be paid by the university. The appeal judge agreed with the decision of the County Court that the claims against the individuals would not give Mr Meagher any benefit of real substance, but would increase the complexity and costs of the case; in other words, the claims against the individuals were ‘not worth the candle’.

It was important that the claims against the individuals were not dependent upon specific discriminatory acts attributable to them, but rather from their standing within the relevant committees of the university. On that logic, the claim could have been extended to include every single member of those committees, which would plainly have been disproportionate, and there was no reason why these individuals should be included and not the rest.

Does a university owe a duty of care to implement a reasonable adjustment plan for a disabled student?

The question of when a university, or other higher education provider, owes a duty of care to its students is a vexing one. A duty of care can arise from a range of factors, but there is no single test to determine what those are; it may arise from a contract, or from the nature of the relationship between the parties, or from circumstances that occur. Each case will be fact specific, which leaves higher education providers with little guidance on when they may owe a duty of care.

Where a student will be disadvantaged because of a disability, higher education providers will likely have obligations under the Equality Act to implement reasonable adjustments. Where a student has a reasonable adjustment plan prepared by a university’s disability resource centre, such as was the case for Mr Meagher, it may be appropriate for the university to implement that plan.

What is not clear is whether those circumstances would also give rise to a separate duty of care. Where an education provider does owe a duty of care, it must take steps to avoid any ‘reasonably foreseeable’ harm being caused to the student in question. This is a much broader obligation and would necessitate a detailed risk assessment. Ultimately, it would place a much greater burden on higher education institutions.

In the tragic case of Natasha Abrahart, the University of Bristol student who suffered with severe anxiety and took her own life before she was due to give a presentation to her class, the court found that the university had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her. It was also claimed that the university had a duty of care towards Natasha because of her disability and that it was therefore liable in negligence; however, given its finding in respect of the university’s Equality Act obligations, the court declined to make a ruling on negligence in that case.

In the recent decision in the Meagher case, the appeal judge reinstated Mr Meagher’s claims for breach of contract and in negligence, which had been struck out by the County Court. If this case proceeds all the way to trial, therefore, the eventual judgment may provide guidance on the circumstances in which a university owes a duty of care towards a disabled student. Any such guidance would be welcomed, although the implications could be far reaching and place an increased burden on already stretched higher education providers.

Return to news headlines