One of the things which I like about fora is that one can reconsider before pressing, "send" rather than just blurting out whatever comes to mind face-to-face.

This is an interesting case and it would not surprise me if the University seeks to appeal the case to the Court of Appeal.

I think that the Judge has neatly dodged the issue of duty of care. It would be the thin end of the wedge. Imagine if the IET had a duty of care towards anybody who might read our discussions!

Chris Pearson said:

This is an interesting case and it would not surprise me if the University seeks to appeal the case to the Court of Appeal.

I think if you read the article, they did appeal ... right to the High Court ... and the judgement was upheld.

Chris Pearson said:

I think that the Judge has neatly dodged the issue of duty of care.

Yes, I was interested in that too, although that doesn't mean there wasn't one (he just said that in this case it didn't matter), and similarly of course we can't  wildly imply parallels with things we've discussed in the threads I linked to.

But it does illustrate that individual needs may need to be considered more across the board?

The university could appeal further to the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.  Whether they should do that is another matter.

The university could appeal further to the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.  Whether they should do that is another matter.

It could request permission to appeal. That would depend upon a real prospect of success and whether the issue is considered to be sufficiently important. It would also depend upon their willingness to spend a lot of money defending their reputation.

ETA: the very last sub-paragraph of the judgment is interesting: "Finally, regardless of any view which I might express, in the event that there is an appeal, the Court of Appeal will be able to address the issues in relation to negligence and duty of care should it consider that it is appropriate to do so."