Do UK universities owe a general duty of care in negligence?
Scope: This page addresses adult students. The legal position is the same across the UK; examples below focus on England & Wales. Under-18s (minors) are different (e.g., safeguarding, assumption of responsibility).
Purpose: If you’ve seen claims online that universities owe students a general “duty of care,” this page explains why that isn’t how UK negligence law works. We separate negligence from discrimination law and show what the courts have actually said in England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
Short answer (⩽50 words): No — in UK law, the courts have not recognised a general negligence duty owed by universities to adult students. Any duty would be exceptional, narrow and fact-specific. [1][2][3][4]
Jump to:
Equality Act vs negligence
Why the “general duty” myth
Re-usable wording
Quick FAQs
Footnotes
Fact-check
Claim: In UK law, universities owe a general duty of care in negligence to adult students.
Verdict: False — not established in the law of England & Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Last reviewed: 29 August 2025 · Sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]
What the courts have actually said
Abrahart (High Court, 14 Feb 2024) — The County Court had dismissed negligence for want of any relevant common-law duty. On appeal, the High Court decided the case on Equality Act grounds and did not express a final view on negligence, leaving the County Court’s order standing.1
Abrahart (County Court, 20 May 2022) — The Judge noted there is no statute or binding precedent establishing a general university duty of care to students and that imposing such a duty would not be fair, just and reasonable on the facts. Negligence was dismissed.2
Feder & McCamish v RWCMD (5 Oct 2023) — The court recognised specific negligence duties tied to how the college investigated and managed student-on-student sexual-assault reports. This was not a blanket “welfare” duty; it was fact-specific and grounded in policy and foreseeability.3
Implications for universities: Across all UK jurisdictions there is no recognised general negligence duty owed to adult students. Any duty arises only on specific facts through narrow routes (e.g., assumption of responsibility, making matters worse by a positive act, limited control, or interference). County Court decisions are persuasive rather than binding. [2][3][1].
Tindall - UK Supreme Court (2024)
Baseline (omissions): Generally there is no duty in negligence to protect a person from harm you did not cause, unless a recognised exception applies.4
Acts vs omissions: A duty can arise if the defendant makes matters worse by a positive act; a mere failure to improve a dangerous situation is not enough.4
Interference principle: A duty may arise where a defendant’s conduct prevents others from protecting the claimant; endorsed in Tindall, but not made out on the facts.5
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; no duty on the assumed facts.4
Implications for universities: There is no general duty from pure non-action. Any negligence duty must fit a recognised route (e.g., assumption of responsibility, making matters worse, limited control situations, or interference), all depending on specific facts.
Equality law duties ≠ negligence duties
The Equality Act 2010 addresses discrimination against protected groups. In higher education, the Act applies to how providers treat applicants, students and (in some cases) former students.67
Protected characteristics: defined in the Act (e.g., disability, race, sex, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, etc.).6
Unlawful conduct: direct and indirect discrimination; discrimination arising from disability; harassment; and victimisation because of a protected characteristic.89
Reasonable adjustments (disability): providers must take reasonable steps to avoid substantial disadvantage to disabled students.10
Plain English:
Discrimination law targets protected-characteristic treatment.
Negligence asks whether a duty of care arises on the facts.
Key differences:
Legal source. Equality law is statutory — the Equality Act 2010 in Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales); Northern Ireland has separate anti-discrimination statutes. Negligence is common law. [6][7]
Who is protected. Equality law protects people with protected characteristics (e.g., disability, race, sex, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity). Negligence protects anyone who can prove duty, breach, causation and non-remote damage. [6]
What it forbids/requires. Equality law forbids discrimination, harassment, victimisation and requires reasonable adjustments for disabled students. Negligence imposes no general duty to protect adult students; any duty arises only on specific facts (e.g., assumption of responsibility, making matters worse). [9][10][8]
Where it applies in HE. The Equality Act expressly applies to HE providers in GB. NI uses separate statutes/orders for discrimination — either way, these are distinct from negligence. [7]
Why the “general duty” myth persists
It feels like there ought to be a broad legal duty. Universities are large, trusted institutions; students (and parents) expect care. But for adult students, negligence law is narrower: without a recognised gateway, there is no general protective duty.
Paternalism hangover. As the age of majority changed and adult capacity was clarified, courts moved away from a guardian-style model toward adult autonomy.
Policy ≠ law. Sector guidance (UUK, AMOSSHE, OIA) and government petition responses use “duty of care” in ordinary policy language. That doesn’t create a common-law duty. [11]
Equality law confusion. Statutory discrimination duties (e.g., reasonable adjustments) are often mistaken for negligence duties. They’re different.
Exceptional cases misread. Fact-specific duties (e.g., around how a particular investigation was handled) can be reported as if they create a general duty— they don’t. [3]
Government petition response (622847): This was a policy statement, not a legal authority. It used “general duty of care” language but did not claim it was common law and cited no legal source. Read closely, it just says providers must not cause harm by their own actions — which is ordinary negligence, not a general omissions duty. [11]
What the law actually says. Recent cases do not recognise a general university duty to adult students. Abrahart leaves negligence undecided on appeal after County Court dismissal; Feder recognises specific, fact-bound duties around investigation handling; the UK Supreme Court in Tindall restates the no-general-duty-for-omissions baseline and endorses narrow gateways (e.g., making matters worse; interference). [1][2][3][4][5
Bottom line: If someone claims there’s a general legal duty, ask for the source. Unless they can point to a statute or case that actually recognises it, the claim is unsupported.
Do UK universities owe a general duty of care in negligence?
Claim: UK universities owe a general duty of care in negligence to all students.
Verdict: False / Not established in English law.
Courts have not recognised a general common-law duty. In Abrahart, the County Court dismissed negligence (no relevant common-law duty) and the High Court did not decide negligence on appeal; in Feder & McCamish the duties recognised were specific to investigation processes—not a blanket duty. 213
What the courts have actually said
- Abrahart (High Court, 14 Feb 2024). The County Court had dismissed negligence for want of any relevant common-law duty. On appeal, the High Court decided the case on Equality Act grounds and did not express a final view on negligence, leaving the County Court’s order standing.1
- Abrahart (County Court, 20 May 2022). The Judge noted there is no statute or precedent establishing a general university duty of care to students and that imposing such a duty would not be fair, just and reasonable on the facts. Negligence was dismissed.2
- Feder & McCamish v RWCMD (County Court, 5 Oct 2023). The court recognised specific negligence duties tied to how the college investigated and managed student-on-student sexual-assault reports. This was not a blanket “welfare” duty; it was fact-specific and grounded in policy and foreseeability.3
Tindall (UK Supreme Court, 2024): omissions and the interference route
- Baseline rule (omissions). Generally there is no duty in negligence to protect a person from harm you did not cause, unless a recognised exception applies.4
- Acts vs omissions. A duty can arise if the defendant makes matters worse by a positive act; a mere failure to improve a dangerous situation is not enough.4
- Interference principle endorsed. A duty may arise where a defendant’s conduct prevents others from protecting the claimant; endorsed in Tindall, but not made out on the facts.5
- Outcome. Appeal dismissed; no duty on the assumed facts.4
Implications for universities: there is no general duty from pure non-action. Any negligence duty must fit a recognised route (e.g., assumption of responsibility, making matters worse, limited control situations, or interference), all depending on specific facts.
Equality Act duties (protected characteristics) ≠ negligence duties
The Equality Act 2010 addresses discrimination against protected groups (those with a “protected characteristic” as defined in the Act). In higher education, the Act applies to how providers treat applicants, students and (in some cases) former students.67
- Protected characteristics: defined in the Act (e.g., disability, race, sex, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, etc.).6
- Unlawful conduct: direct and indirect discrimination; discrimination arising from disability; harassment; and victimisation because of a protected characteristic.89
- Reasonable adjustments (disability): providers must take reasonable steps to avoid substantial disadvantage to disabled students.10
Key point: these are statutory discrimination duties that protect people with protected characteristics. They do not amount to a general, free-standing duty of care in negligence. Any negligence duties arise separately and only on specific facts (see cases above).
Two different legal routes — don’t mix them up
Plain English: The Equality Act 2010 protects people with protected characteristics from specific unlawful conduct. Negligence is a universal tort available to everyone, but a duty of care only arises on specific facts — there is no recognised general duty owed by universities to all students.671
- Who is protected? People with protected characteristics (e.g., disability, race, sex, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy/maternity).6
- What’s prohibited? Direct/indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment, victimisation in HE contexts.897
- Adjustments duty: Reasonable adjustments for disabled students.10
- Who is protected? Everyone can sue if they can prove the tort elements.
- What must be shown? Duty of care (on the facts), breach, causation, and damage (not too remote).
- In HE specifically: No recognised general duty owed by universities to all students; any duties are narrow and fact-specific (e.g., certain investigation processes).13
Why some websites say there’s a “general duty”
Sector guidance and policy materials (e.g., from UUK, AMOSSHE, and the OIA) often use the phrase “duty of care” in a policy sense. In Feder & McCamish, the court noted that these materials identify a duty of care without identifying a legal source. That language is frequently picked up online and can mislead non-lawyers into thinking there’s a settled general tort duty—there isn’t.3
The precise wording you can reuse
Under English law, there is no recognised general common-law duty of care owed by universities to students. Duties may arise only in specific circumstances (for example, around how an institution investigates serious misconduct), and universities also have separate statutory obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
Quick FAQs
Do HE providers ever owe duties in negligence? Yes—on specific facts. Feder & McCamish recognised duties tied to reasonable investigation and case-handling in sexual-assault reports. That is not a blanket welfare duty.3
Does Abrahart create a general negligence duty? No. The appeal was decided on Equality Act grounds; negligence was left undecided and the County Court’s dismissal of negligence remained.12
Footnotes (primary sources)
- Abrahart – High Court (14 Feb 2024), The University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart, [2024] EWHC 299 (KB), esp. section “The Cross-Appeal and the issues in relation to negligence” where the Judge does not express a final view on negligence and leaves the County Court order standing. Judgment PDF. See also the case summary page.
- Abrahart – County Court (20 May 2022), Abrahart v University of Bristol (Bristol CC), section “The claim in negligence”: “There is no statute or precedent which establishes the existence of such a duty of care owed by a university to a student…” Negligence dismissed. Judgment PDF.
- Feder & McCamish v Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama (Central London County Court, 5 Oct 2023), approved judgment recognising specific duties around investigations; also noting sector guidance identifies a “duty of care” without giving a legal source. Judgment PDF.
- Tindall & Anor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, [2024] UKSC 33, press summary and case page. Press summary • Case page.
- 39 Essex Chambers, case note on Tindall (23 Oct 2024) discussing the endorsed interference route and omissions doctrine. Summary.
- Equality Act 2010, s.4 — definition of protected characteristics. Legislation.
- Equality Act 2010, s.91 — application to students in further and higher education. Legislation.
- Equality Act 2010, ss.20–21 — duty to make reasonable adjustments (disability). s.20.
- Equality Act 2010, s.15 — discrimination arising from disability. Legislation.
- Equality Act 2010, ss.26–27 — harassment and victimisation. s.26 • s.27.