A high profile case is unfolding which may cause reputational damage to one of the world’s great universities. The case has already excited substantial media interest in Varsity, the Daily Telegraph, the Times and WONKHE. It’s the subject of a YouTube video.
The case of Jacob Meagher v. University of Cambridge centres on possible disability discrimination and procedural failings during Meagher’s PhD exam, which may have led to significant personal and professional harm.
Jacob Meagher is a qualified barrister at 1EC Chambers. He is also a PhD candidate in Law at Sidney Sussex College. He did not pass his PhD viva examination in April 2023. The university eventually declared that the exam was not held in accordance with its regulations.
Adjustments to the PhD viva were advised by Cambridge University’s own Accessibility and Disability Resource Centre. These included provisions such as allowing breaks and using specific questioning techniques. The university failed to implement any of the recommended adjustments. Jacob Meagher argues that the absence of these accommodations placed him at a substantial disadvantage, contributing to his viva result.
Following the tragic suicide of a disabled student at Bristol University, Natasha Abrahart, there were substantial legal repercussions. The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued new guidance to universities on their responsibilities to disabled students.
“Our new guidance, available to the public but issued directly to higher education institutions and staff, establishes what universities must do to comply with equality law. The advice is clear that waiting for a student to come forward and ask for reasonable adjustments is not enough. Universities need to proactively support their disabled students so that they can thrive in a safe and equal environment.” (Baroness Falkner, Chair of EHRC)
The reasonable adjustments in Meagher’s case were simple to put into effect. This was not done. This highlights a common challenge faced by disabled students (and staff) in ensuring that recommended accommodations for disability are actually implemented.
At first, Jacob Meagher tried to settle matters internally. He wanted to ensure that this should never happen to a disabled student ever again, as well as to be provided with fair and impartial adjustments for the examination of his PhD. No adequate response was forthcoming from Cambridge University. Jacob Meagher was treated as if he was trying to exploit the system rather than addressing his genuine needs. His mental health began to deteriorate.
“No student should be driven to suicide and the point of breakdown; no student should have to launch legal proceedings against their alma mater simply to be assured of a fair examination of their PhD thesis. On multiple occasions I have written individually to Professor Prentice [Vice Chancellor] and Professor Vira [Pro Vice Chancellor for Education] and have received no response.” [J Meagher]
After attempts to settle the matter internally failed, Jacob Meagher initiated legal proceedings against the University of Cambridge alleging:
- Disability discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010,
- Breach of contract,
- Negligence (breach of common law duty of care).
He claims that the University’s actions resulted in financial losses and caused significant harm to his health. He also obtained an injunction against the University in June 2024 preventing it from altering his status as a PhD student until determination of his claim
The verdict in this case, if it proceeds to full trial, will shed much light on the question of when and whether a university owes its students a duty of care. It may have far-reaching consequences.
What can be said at outset is that this follows a familiar pattern in the University. Its record on internal dispute resolution is poor. It regards compliance with its own procedures as paramount, irrespective of whether those procedures are themselves lawful. There is now significant employment, whistleblowing and equality legislation, which the University believes does not apply to its own actions.
So, it’s no surprise to the 21 Group that the University prefers to spend money on its highly aggressive lawyers as opposed to apologising and following the advice of its own disability professionals.
The extraordinary thing about the landmark case of Abrahart versus Bristol University is that no-one in senior management recognised the huge damage that this would do to Bristol University’s own reputation. The grieving parents of a dead daughter, who killed herself because of failings of your university, are the very last people you should be squaring up against in court, for reasons of common humanity and compassion. Bristol University even appealed, and lost again.
Meagher’s case shows that university senior management have seemingly learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
28 Comments
FirstFolio · 10 May 2025 at 14:59
Good luck to Jacob Meagher. Obviously, there is no point in having an Accessibility and Disability Resource Centre, if the university just ignores its advice all the time.
It’s a smart idea for a law student to take on Cambridge University and win. This should turbo-charge his career.
Alex · 12 May 2025 at 18:27
Surely from a legal perspective, if an employer ignores its own internal disability advisory service, that is a hard lawsuit to win? Whether the advice is objectively right or wrong, doesn’t it automatically mean they acted to discriminate based on disability to the best of the information they were being given?
21percent.org · 12 May 2025 at 21:04
Agreed. It looks to us that Meagher will win this argument in court.
Our guess is that the repercussions of losing this case will be significant for universities (in terms of setting a precedent), so we think Cambridge will settle.
Of course, this is tuition fee money or donor money that is wasted because the University is seemingly unable to do things that any half-way competent organisation in the country is able to do.
ProfPlum · 10 May 2025 at 19:12
Some of the issues are discussed here:
https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2025/higher-education-institutions-latest-update-from-the-courts-on-duty-of-care-to-students
The WONKHE article is also interesting:
https://wonkhe.com/blogs/the-courts-are-slowly-clarifying-universities-duty-of-care/
The Daily Mail comments represent the dark side of the human soul:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14282311/Cambridge-law-student-sues-university-failed-PhD.html
Peter · 10 May 2025 at 22:19
ProfPlum points to some more helpful reasonable and less inflammatory opinions on this important and sensitive issue;
eg one source ends with:
“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.”
21percent.org · 11 May 2025 at 05:34
The Meagher case would seem to revolve around whether accommodations recommended by a University’s Disability Resource Centre have some legal force under equality legislation.
Currently, it’s unclear what protections exist, leaving students exposed and institutions at risk of penalties for not taking appropriate action.
Juvenal · 12 May 2025 at 12:21
The amazing thing about this is why was it not sorted out earlier. There was a mistake. Now just redo the viva with all the accommodations requested by the Disability Resource Centre. The fact that this is heading to the courts is bad for all concerned. These kind of things need sorting out quickly and as early as possible. So it’s either a failure of management or of HR to have allowed this to drift to the courts.
Emily · 12 May 2025 at 17:06
Such a marvellous point! This is the common denominator with all the Cambridge cases, time and time again a refusal to accept a simple fault, make amends, and set things right. How hard would that have been?
Insider · 15 May 2025 at 12:16
The key problem is with our legal services. What they are supposed to say when faced with a reasonable legal challenge is something like: hey guys, it could be that this person has a valid point, not sure without further evidence but rather than take the risk, why don’t we just address their concern (e.g. redo the viva) and make things right.
Instead they are presented the case like someone is “attacking” the university, and in every single case they think they are supposed to be “fighting” it out.
It is nuts. No legal service is supposed to work that way. The function of internal legal services is to advise not litigate. The best advice is to AVOID litigation wherever possible.
21percent.org · 15 May 2025 at 14:55
Agreed, this is an insightful post
It’s where the analogy of what went wrong at the Post Office is relevant. The legal services dept of the Post Office completely failed to understand that their role was to advise in their client’s best long term interests. Instead they concentrated on stonewalling, denying everything, fighting the sub-postmasters and ultimately stitching them up.
Eileen Nugent · 15 May 2025 at 18:39
Yes, they are vigorously but not carefully defending the organisation, all that vigour & effort is just inflaming the cases, at which point they are even more vigorously but not carefully defending the organisation & the case against the organisation is just growing & gathering merit the more they are vigorously defending the organisation. It’s very noticeable when you have no intention of taking an individual case or engaging in litigation against them but have a legal obligation to raise concerns & are forced to persist in the interaction for that reason. The interaction becomes highly irrational & the whole governance structure seems to breaks down on the concerns.
Mutatis Mutandis · 15 May 2025 at 23:24
Legal service? Hah!
The university doesn’t even have one
The few people left just forward everything to external solicitors who charge an arm and a leg on an hourly basis, have no clue what they are doing, and are delighted to rack up huge bills for the university to draft total bullshit
I am not surprised law students are taking the university to court
Objectively speaking they are more talented than the newbies and second raters the admin hires
It is the blind leading the blind
Watching the watchers · 17 May 2025 at 08:57
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
What_About_Staff · 13 May 2025 at 08:13
I wish Jacob Meagher the very best. It takes real courage to stand up to the very institution that’s supposed to protect us. In truth, students—viewed as fee-paying customers—are often better shielded than staff, who are treated as expendable.
Senior leadership—VC (Prentice), Pro-VCs (Munir, Neeling, Ferguson-Smith, HR (Hudson), Registrar (Rampton)—were approached for help several times during years-long ordeal. They either did nothing or replied with usual “strictly confidential” communications that did nothing to help. The VC didn’t even sign her own hollow response. Now the university faces lawsuits as we have been exonerated —all avoidable, had leadership chosen integrity over indifference. But why bother, when the public foots the bill? Staff and students had to foot our own private counselling bills and some were indeed suicidal.
21percent.org · 13 May 2025 at 09:35
We agree that students have more protection than staff. The OfS is not super-effective, but it has intervened in some cases involving sexual harassment of students by staff and forced universities to pay some (minor) compensation
There are so very many of these bullying cases involving staff at Cambridge University. They could have been solved easily, but grossly incompetent HR caused events to escalate.
The 21 Group knows of so, so many. All with the same pattern of complete indifference or outright denial by those at the top, sometimes backed up by deceitful or incompetent Heads of School.
The culture of an organisation is set at the top. Cambridge’s culture is rotten because of the very poor leadership at the top. No improvement until some of these people go.
Sophey · 14 May 2025 at 11:45
Who is the best person in the senior administration to contact to report serious complaints in the first instance? Should it be Munir, Hudson or the VC? Is there someone whose remit best covers these issues and who seems to be at least slightly professional / proactive?
Tommy DeVito · 14 May 2025 at 13:48
Recommend you take a look at Goodfellas. The University has similar structures, codes of loyalty and the brutal enforcement of its rules.
The capo (Paulie) is at the top & runs the operation. Below him are associates who work under his protection and direction, though the capo keeps his distance from direct involvement.
Loyalty is demanded. Complain, you’ll get whacked.
Anon · 14 May 2025 at 14:31
Hard question to answer in part because this is two separate questions, with two different answers – who is formally responsible vs who is likely to prove the most “responsive”.
Obviously formal responsibility lies with Andi (Hudson) and anything serious ought to be investigated by her but as most of these cases seem to have escalated to the top without any corrective action, that seems a most unwise a course of action. Then of course the VC is meant to be responsive, yet in all my time here I have seen no case to date where any action was taken at that level under our current leadership.
You left out Emma: I will do the same. Kamal has it in his formal role description. His response might be interesting. Then you could also try some of the other Pro VCs, but also don’t forget reaching out to the candidates for next Chancellor, as well as staff organisations like UCU.
21percent.org · 14 May 2025 at 15:04
“You left out Emma: I will do the same.” 😉
Eileen Nugent · 15 May 2025 at 02:28
Sophey you can apply this thinking – who is the best person to contact to report serious complaints and then spend a lot of effort trying to find the best person with the highest level of professionalism & proactivity. A more efficient way of thinking about this however can be asking yourself the question : is this type of serious complaint resolvable? can the university handle this type of serious complaint based on its previous handling of similar types of complaint, if answer is no it spares you all the effort of trying to find the optimal person to make initial contact with because it can then matter very little who you then initially contact with the serious complaint as the outcome will be the same in any case (unresolvable) & it may make little sense on such a complaint to deviate from the contacting the person determined by organisational policies and procedures as that will simplify any subsequent legal or regulatory processes should the case escalate to that level.
On some types of serious complaints it is possible there is no one who can resolve it, that there is no voice of reason in the university on that particular type of serious complaint, even full professors who worked most of their working life for the university, were on university council working directly with the VC, were trustees of the university, who knew all the statutes and ordinances, knew every policy & procedure & exactly who the right and/or best person to contact was have ended up in employment tribunals on certain types of complaint. In one case a former chief justice of England and Wales with formal role in the university [commissary] was contacted for analysis of the case after approaches to all other individuals in the university failed & the former child justice felt that nothing could be done to compel the university to resolve the case at which point the case was left to go to the employment tribunal.
On some types of complaint it matters very little who you contact because the organisation is not resolving the complaint as that is the pattern of organisational behaviour that has become entrenched over decades on that particular type of complaint. It can be more important to look at the characteristics of the complaint rather than the characteristics of the person being approached to deal with the complaint as that can be the critical factor in determining whether the complaint can be resolved or not. For example an unfair dismissal is not resolvable in Cambridge based on past handling of that type of complaint – history of non compliance with a re-engagement order from an employment tribunal – and if someone is in a situation where an unfair dismissal is a potential outcome of the situation the serious complaint is being raised in relation to a legal advisor would need to be instructed to get a legal injunction to prevent the unfair dismissal from occurring rather than try to resolve the issue after the unfair dismissal has occurred as that is not resolvable serious complaint in Cambridge. In another organisation that did comply with that type of order from an employment tribunal, that complaint would be considered resolvable and a legal injunction might then not be seen as necessary or granted by a court as the unfair dismissal complaint could be assessed in an employment tribunal and reversed to resolve the complaint as happened in e.g. Oxford.
Complaints on the regulation of work-related stress seem to not currently be resolvable in the university, bullying/harassment is a sub-category of that type of complaint. Complaints on the mishandling of whistleblowing processes also seem not to be currently resolvable in the university. If you go with the wrong type of complaint you can end up going round the houses with the complaint from person to person thinking the problem is that you contacted the wrong person initially or that you did something else wrong in raising the complaint when the real problem is that you brought the wrong type of complaint to the university – a complaint that is in the category of unresolvable complaints. It’s often only apparent after you have contacted every relevant person at every level of the organisation that you have brought the wrong type of complaint to the university. This has been the situation in the organisation for a long time, since at least 2013, it’s the same response pattern across multiple VCs, >3, which points to an organisational fault on the handling of certain types of serious complaint.
The problem now is that if the regulation of work-related stress is not a resolvable complaint that’s a health and safety regulatory issue that needs to go to the regulator : health and safety executive [work in progress]. Presumably when the fair work agency gets set up if an unfair dismissal is still not a resolvable complaint in the university then that is an employment regulatory issue and will need to go there. Management can be very proactive and professional along certain dimensions, doesn’t mean that they are proactive and professional along all dimensions or that they would manage to pry long-running cases from HR-Legal (cases across multiple VCs) & temporarily fashion an alternative pathway for dealing with them whilst also setting up new processes as a way to kick start the change in organisational culture in resolving complaints in future in preparation for changes in external regulatory intervention powers & appetite for intervention on these issues. It’s an extremely significant culture change & one that is fraught with high and unpredictable risks, more so that any previous culture change attempted, but doing nothing is also fraught with high and unpredictable risks & the risks associated with doing nothing are the risks that are growing.
Freudian Slipknot · 16 May 2025 at 00:23
“The VC didn’t even sign her own hollow response” … not surprised… at this point seems kinda hard to believe she won’t eventually be expelled from the APA (what with all this staff abuse / disability discrimination happening on her watch)
Eileen Nugent · 16 May 2025 at 11:05
Since it’s an organisational response made in the context of a non-standard situation, one that could end up being the subject of litigation, if the VC did not sign the response then it’s unclear whether that response was authorised by the VC & therefore whose response to the situation it really is. It’s also then unclear whether the VC was made aware of correspondence in relation to the situation & given a chance to respond or whether they were unaware of the correspondence/situation during the time a response not authorised by them was written by someone else & then sent without their signature.
21percent.org · 16 May 2025 at 13:34
We know a lot of these letters are drafted by HR/Legal and then signed by someone gullible like the Responsible Person or Head of School.
It’s like the letters signed by politicians of all parties in the Post Office Scandal. Civil servants drafted them.
But politicians became responsible when they appended their signature. From the POV of the Civil Service, this committed the politicians to supporting the policy of prosecuting the subpostmasters
Just so here. The RP or HoS is committed to supporting morally bankrupt positions once they sign the letters drafted by HR/Legal “for the good of the university”
Eileen Nugent · 16 May 2025 at 14:15
If letters are being sent out without any signatures it’s not clear who is then responsible for the response contained in the letter without a signature. I don’t know if the current VC is gullible, all I know is that the organisational response on these issues has not changed in 4 years & that the whole organisation seems gullible in the face of its legal advisors on these issues.
Luytens · 16 May 2025 at 18:10
The problem is the complete, total, utter absence of responsibility. Everyone can see injustices happening – but then looks the other way, instead of taking appropriate moral action.
It is disgusting.
Dafydd · 13 May 2025 at 18:11
There is a related case of Feder and McCamish v. Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama,
https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/case-update-university-held-liable-for-a-failure-to-properly-investigate-allegations-of-sexual-assault/
The court determined that the College had breached its duty of care by mishandling serious sexual assault allegations. Although procedures were in place, the College failed to adhere to them—neglecting to conduct a proper investigation, provide adequate support to the students involved, or safeguard their welfare.
Eileen Nugent · 14 May 2025 at 06:02
Thankfully Jacob Meagher is alive & has recovered the high levels of mental resilience and mental stamina necessary to be able to take the legal action required to have a situation properly investigated and ensure a fair and reasonable organisational response is obtained. Fortunately Jacob Meagher is a practising barrister & has the legal expertise necessary to be able to challenge the university in a court on a complex legal case. Since the university failed to follow its own internal procedures it’s very difficult to see how the university could win such a case.
Whilst Jacob Meagher’s outcome – having to challenge university in a court to get reasonable adjustments – is not a good outcome for anyone, it is one of the better outcomes after an organisational reasonable adjustment process failure, an outcome where the student is alive, an outcome where the student has been able to recover the high levels of mental resilience and mental stamina necessary to challenge the university in a complex legal case to ensure fair and reasonable treatment is eventually obtained & unusually for a PhD student an outcome where the student themselves happens to have the legal knowledge and legal experience necessary to understand the law in relation to their own case and to manage the legal processes arising out of it thus increasing the chances of obtaining a fair outcome.
I raised a set of concerns with national regulators in relation to student examination processes at the university as there are defaults in undergraduate examination processes that have a significant impact on the probability of reasonable adjustments process failures & there are worse student outcomes than the one above. The worst student outcomes in universities are currently being examined by coroners who are then directly interacting with universities by issuing prevention of future deaths notices to universities but such direct interaction may make very little sense in cases where a significant contribution to a death is made by an organisational process failure which if repeated (in the organisation or in other organisations) could similarly impact other individuals & where some form of regulatory oversight might then required to ensure the organisation and/or sector has taken the appropriate action in relation to the prevention of future deaths notice. It may more sense for the coroner to send the notice to the regulator that has oversight of the regulation of any faulty organisational processes identified e.g. OfS and/or OIA in a case where the failure of a reasonable adjustments process being applied in the context of an examination process makes a significant contribution to a death. If universities fail to self-regulate on these issues, it is unlikely they will be left to self-regulate on them beyond generating a first prevention of future deaths notice.
In terms of the response Jacob received from the university whilst it may be surprising to anyone who has not had to interact with the university on these issues, it’s no surprise to anyone who has attempted to interact with the university on them. The university has moved beyond lawsuits now. It is generating cases that are being handed over to national regulators. This is what happens when the health impact of a future lawsuit is predicted to be significant based on past university behaviour in lawsuits : non-existent, irrational and/or unnecessarily cold and adversarial responses in past lawsuits are predictive of significant amounts of unnecessary stress & high health impact in future lawsuits. The university can take the same adversarial approach when dealing with those in organisational positions which give them a set of legal obligations to raise any serious concerns, anyone in this position who estimates a point has been reached where their health cannot sustain the health impact of a lawsuit on serious unresolved issues/concerns hands the case over to the national regulators & the university generates a regulatory case that it then needs to be settled with the national regulators independently of reaching a settlement with the individual.
For governing body fellows and/or members of Regent house the option of leaving some of these more serious situations & taking no further action might not be there. If the university makes no genuine attempt to resolve serious issues/concerns the options might then be to take a individual case or to hand the case over to national regulators, if the predicted health impact of a case for the individual is too high the case goes to national regulators. I would not go into any of these roles with significant governance responsibilities in the university without health insurance & legal insurance, otherwise if you get caught up in one of these particularly difficult/complex organisational governance situations it’s very difficult to constrain the situational stressors generated & to limit the situational health impact. With health insurance specialist health care can be accessed quickly to limit the health impact of the situation and reduce the risk of loss of access to employment in the situation [cliff-edge global stressor], with legal insurance an ethical legal advisor can be well paid to guide the efficient resolution of the issues/concerns from the earliest stages reducing the risk of the situation escalating to the point where there might effectively be no option but to take an individual case or to hand the case over to national regulators.
21percent.org · 14 May 2025 at 07:46
In terms of the response Jacob received from the university whilst it may be surprising to anyone who has not had to interact with the university on these issues, it’s no surprise to anyone who has attempted to interact with the university on them.
This is very true. These individuals have no interest in, or respect for, the core values of a university.