Blog
Supreme Court clarifies VAT group rules in Prudential v HMRC
Waqar Shah
On 14th February 2024, the High Court issued a landmark ruling that universities and students alike have been long awaiting.
Background
In the tragic case of 20 year-old Natasha Abrahart, who sadly took her own life in April 2018, the court dismissed the appeal by the University of Bristol (the University), and upheld an earlier judgment which found that the University contributed to her death by discriminating against her.
Natasha had been diagnosed with depression and chronic Social Anxiety Disorder in February 2018 and academic staff were aware that she was struggling and experiencing anxiety and panic attacks particularly in relation to the oral presentation components of her second- year physics assessments. She had, for example, confessed to a University employee that she had been having suicidal thoughts and had attempted it.
Her family's claim
Natasha's father Dr Robert Abrahart bought a legal action against the University alleging it had unlawfully discriminated against her on the grounds of disability under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) and that this contributed to her death. Further, he claimed that the University had breached a duty of care owed to Natasha under the law of negligence.
Legal decisions
In May 2022, the County Court found that the University of Bristol had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments in the way it assessed Natasha and had engaged in indirect disability discrimination, failing to offer her protection under the Act. However, the court dismissed the negligence claim on the basis that the University did not owe Natasha any relevant general common law duty of care.
The University challenged the court’s decision in respect of the breaches of the Act, and also the finding that ‘had there been a relevant duty of care, that duty was breached in the case’. [1] Dr Abrahart cross appealed (which the court allowed) in relation to the negligence claim. The thrust of his argument was that the court was wrong not to find that the University had assumed responsibility for Natasha to the extent that the methods of academic assessment used in the particular module affected her.
Mr Justice Linden rejected all seven arguments of appeal put forward by the University including:
- that a student's ability to explain laboratory work was a core competency of a professional scientist;
- that the argument Natasha had not followed the University's procedures for requesting adjustments to assessments was an overly bureaucratic process driven approach in the circumstances;
- that the University staff member with knowledge of Natasha's vulnerability should have drawn it the attention of others, despite not seeking her consent to do so.
Importantly, in respect of the negligence claim, Mr Justice Linden said:
“Having come to the conclusion which I have reached on the disability discrimination claims, however, I do not propose to express a final view, one way or the other, in relation to the Judge’s findings about the claim in negligence or the parties’ arguments in relation to this claim”.
In short, having dismissed the appeal, Mr Justice Linden did not consider it necessary to make a determination on the cross appeal by Dr Abrahart on the negligence and duty of care points. He went onto state that had he been required to consider and determine the points, he would have been reluctant to conclude that the University had breached any potential common law duty of care to Natasha for the same reasons as the duties under the Equality Act were breached.
Implications
As such, whilst not making a determination in respect of the duty of care point, the court’s decision could not be clearer in supporting the arguments of Natasha’s family. It is a wake-up call for other universities to review their policies and procedures, ensuring they are robust and effective, especially where students have known mental health issues.
Mr Justice Linden’s decision opens the door for others to argue about a university's obligations, for example, potentially extending to the manner in which universities conduct investigations and the safeguarding of participants involved.
As a result of this case there is also a campaign urging the Government to impose a statutory duty of care on universities for their students. But if and until that is enacted, this Court of Appeal decision has wide ranging implications in and of itself – empowering more students to consider their rights if they have a relevant diagnosis,
Clearly the sector does not want a repeat of the sad circumstances that occurred in the Natasha Abrahart case, and therefore universities will need to respond accordingly.
FURTHER INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this blog, please contact Shannett Thompson in our Regulatory team.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Shan is a Partner in the Regulatory Team and is the firm’s Training Principal. She trained in the NHS and commenced her career exclusively defending doctors. She provides regulatory advice predominantly in the health and social care and education sectors.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
You may also be interested in:
Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
Blog
A New Era of Football Regulation - The Independent Football Regulator
Natalie Cohen
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print