Universities and Duty of Care: Where are we at in 2025/26?
In the UK, universities have long played a role that extends beyond delivering academic content. Increasingly, they are being seen as institutions with a moral—and potentially legal—responsibility to safeguard student wellbeing. The concept of a university’s “duty of care” has become a national talking point, fuelled by student tragedies, growing mental health challenges, and ongoing calls for systemic reform. So, where do universities currently stand on this issue as we move into 2025/26?
Understanding Duty of Care
Legally, a duty of care is an obligation to act with reasonable caution to prevent foreseeable harm. It arises in various contexts—between employer and employee, medical professionals and patients, or more generally, wherever responsibility and fairness are in question.
Four key elements determine whether a duty of care exists:
Foreseeability – Could a reasonable person have anticipated the risk?
Proximity – Is there a close relationship, physical or relational, between the parties?
Standard of care – Would a reasonable person have acted differently in the same circumstances?
Breach and harm – Was the duty breached, and did that breach cause actual harm?
Examples of this are widespread: employers must ensure a safe workplace; healthcare professionals must deliver care in line with clinical standards. Universities are increasingly facing similar expectations.
Approaches to Duty of Care across the United Kingdom (2025)
Approaches vary across the UK. Scotland benefits from an integrated model between universities and NHS services due to devolved structures. Wales has government-backed mental health strategies with dedicated funding. Northern Ireland has implemented targeted mental health plans for young people. England, by contrast, has a more fragmented system, which affects consistency in student support and duty of care implementation.
In loco…. something….
Historically, the doctrine of in loco parentis—Latin for “in the place of a parent”—implied that universities had the authority and responsibility to act as guardians for their students, regardless of their age. While this concept once guided the relationship between universities and students, today, universities are not considered to be in loco parentis, reflecting a broader societal shift that views students as autonomous adults. The closest example to this historic approach can be found today within Scotland where corporate parenting is established under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
However, this denial of a parental role does not absolve institutions of responsibility; rather, it creates a more nuanced expectation that universities support student welfare through reasonable and proportionate measures, especially when risks are known. The tension between recognising student independence and ensuring their safety continues to shape the evolving understanding of duty of care.
Student Wellbeing and the Strain on Public Services
Mental health is one of the most pressing areas where duty of care is being tested. The number of students disclosing mental health challenges has risen sharply over the past decade. In response, universities have expanded counselling services and partnered with local NHS providers. However, this support is inconsistently available, resulting in a “postcode lottery” in the quality and accessibility of care.
University staff know that access to NHS, mental health, ambulance, and social work services depends heavily on location. While some areas benefit from highly responsive public services, others suffer from delayed or absent responses.
Universities acknowledge that public services are overstretched—but this doesn’t diminish the fact that these services are the experts in managing high-risk scenarios. They are governed by professional standards and statutory regulations. Yet, with no guarantee of specialist support, universities have gradually taken on more responsibilities. Over the last 30–40 years, mental health professionals and counselling services have become standard in higher education settings.
This expansion has benefited students by offering accessible in-house support. It has also helped institutions maintain student wellbeing and academic continuity. Yet, the boundaries between what a university should do and what it must do remain unclear.
Legal Developments and Public Scrutiny
The 2022 civil case Abrahart v University of Bristol has been pivotal in reshaping the duty of care conversation. Natasha Abrahart, a student with severe social anxiety, died by suicide after being required to complete oral assessments. The court found the university had breached its duties under the Equality Act by failing to make reasonable adjustments, though it stopped short of declaring a general tort-based duty of care.
“As regards the provision of pastoral care, this did not extend to an obligation “by non-medical staff to tend to Natasha’s mental health.”
This judgment has influenced legal and public discourse, sparking calls for clearer statutory duties for universities. In 2023, a petition from the campaign group For the 100 brought the issue to Parliament. However, the government rejected the idea of a statutory duty of care, instead highlighting alternative initiatives like the Universities Mental Health Charter Award and the Higher Education Mental Health Implementation Taskforce.
Where Are We Now?
Despite increased attention, universities arguably remain in a similar position to where they were several years ago. The For the 100 petition created a rare window for open discussion about the duty of care as it applies to universities, a conversation welcomed by university professionals often left “holding the risk” in the most complex cases.
Department for Education, 2023
In this uncertain and high-risk space, what can university staff do to protect both students and themselves? The answer begins with sharing concerns.
Safeguarding and Professional Judgement
When faced with a safeguarding concern, staff should consider the following:
Is the person over 18?
Do they have care and/or support needs (even if not currently receiving support)?
Are they at risk of, or currently experiencing, significant harm as a result?
If all three apply, the person may be considered an adult-at-risk. This allows for appropriate information-sharing with public services or senior colleagues. Also, contacting next of kin is justified unless it poses a safety risk. If you are unsure, share.
“...concerns alone are suffient grounds for raising the alarm.”
The Care Act 2014 outlines this framework for England, although its definitions—particularly around “care and/or support needs”—are vague. Notably, concerns alone are sufficient grounds for raising the alarm. These needs can be short-term (e.g., intoxication) or long-term (e.g., disability). Mental capacity does not need to be assessed before action is taken, even if emergency services cite it as a reason for non-response.
Nevertheless, there is a growing risk that universities will be held responsible for areas traditionally covered by NHS and social services. As public services struggle, the boundaries of institutional responsibility remain dangerously blurred.
The complexity of duty of care in universities cannot be understated and this is why institutions are dependant upon other services to support in keeping them safe. With “The Budget” currently on the agenda with Government, it is certainly an appropriate time to cite that better resourced and managed public services will inevitably make universities safer. Where university professionals feel more secure that support will be available from outside the institution, more consistent responses to risk will follow.
