Home » Education and people who stammer in Britain » University and college, including exams » Competence standards

Competence standards

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 3rd July 2026.

What is a ‘competence standard’ in the EqA rules on universities and professional exam bodies? Also why does it matter?

Summary

  • ‘Competence standards’ are important mainly because the reasonable adjustment duty on universities and professional exam bodies cannot require an adjustment of the competence standard itself. So they effectively set a boundary on the reasonable adjustment duty. Below Reasonable adjustments.
  • However, the reasonable adjustment duty can apply to the process for ascertaining whether someone meets the competence standard: below Reasonable adjustments. Also the competence standard can itself be challenged, under s.19 EqA (indirect discrimination), if it disadvantages disabled people and is not shown to be justified: below Competence standards can be challenged through indirect discrimination.
  • A competence standard is defined in the EqA as ‘an academic, medical or other standard applied for the purpose of determining whether or not a person has a particular level of competence or ability’: below Definition of ‘competence standard’.
  • The Abrahart case illustrates how a court identified what the competence standard was in a particular case, relating to an oral assessment by a university: below Example: Abrahart case.
  • The competence standard can limit what adjustments are possible to the process for assessing it. For example, if the competence standard specifically relates oral competence, it cannot be assessed in writing: below Process inextricably linked with competence standard.
  • Difficult questions can arise on whether a competence standard prevents a time limit from being subject to reasonable adjustments: below Time limits. Even if it does, then (as always) one can potentially challenge whether the competence standard itself is justified, eg under s.19 EqA.

What this page covers

This page looks at what is a ‘competence standard’ within the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) for:

For the following kinds of exam/assessment, there are no specific rules on ‘competence standards’, so this page does not apply:

Why it matters what is a ‘competence standard’

Competence standards can be challenged through indirect discrimination

I outline below how a competence standard of a university or professional exam body is not itself subject to the reasonable adjustment duty, and can also limit a s.15 claim against a professional exam body.

However, the process for ascertaining whether someone meets the competence standard is subject to the reasonable adjustments duty.

Also it is important that one can claim under the EqA in respect of a competence standard itself, if its discriminatory effects cannot be be justified. Even where a reasonable adjustment (or s.15) claim is excluded, a disabled student etc can challenge a competence standard itself under s.19 EqA (and under s.15 below in the case of a university). S.19 has no exception for competence standards. The university or professional exam body has a defence if it shows that the competence standard is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, on a s.19 claim (the s.15 justification test here may or may not be different). See:

Reasonable adjustments

The general rule is that:

However, in both cases, a PCP is stated not to include the application of a competence standard: EqA Sch 13 para 4(2)(3) for universities, and EqA Sch 8 para 15(2) for professional exam bodies.

This means that the reasonable adjustment duty cannot alter what competence standard is being assessed, but can still apply to how the competence standard is assessed, ie the process for ascertaining whether someone meets the competence standard. What standard can be assessed may be challenged through indirect discrimination, or sometimes s.15: above Competence standards can be challenged through indirect discrimination.

So if the competence standards being assessed are not specifically oral skills, it may be a reasonable adjustment for the student to do a written instead of an oral assessment, as in Abrahart, below. (Even if competence standards are specifically oral, there is still the question whether the university can justify assessing them (above) under ss.15 and 19 EqA).

There is sometimes an overlap between the competence standard and the process. Sometimes the process of assessing whether a competence standard has been achieved and the standard itself are inextricably linked. For instance, ability to speak French cannot be tested in writing: below Process inextricably linked with competence standard.

S.15 and competence standards

I’d say there are more uncertainties in this area about s.15, than there are about s.19 and the reasonable adjustment duty.

As regards professional exam bodies (ie ‘qualifications bodies’), s.53(7) EqA provides that the application by a qualifications body of a competence standard is not disability discrimination unless it is indirect discrimination within s.19 EqA. In other words the application of a competence standard can only be challenged under s.19 EqA. It may be unclear whether the alleged discrimination is the ‘application of a competence standard’. See further Professional exam bodies>Discrimination arising from disability (s.15).

For county court claims against universities (under Part 6 EqA), s.15 is not subject to any similar exclusion. I discuss exam-related s.15 claims against universities (or FE colleges) at Oral assessments at university: the rules>Discrimination arising from disability (s.15).

Definition of ‘competence standard’

The EqA defines a competence standard as:

‘an academic, medical or other standard applied for the purpose of determining whether or not a person has a particular level of competence or ability’

EqA Sch 13 para 4(3) for universities, EqA s.54(6) for professional exam bodies

A competence standard might include learning objectives and/or assessment criteria, for example. On the other hand, not all those will necessarily be competence standards. There is little case law to show how the courts will apply the legal definition in practice.

A rare appeal decision on competence standards is University of Bristol v Abrahart, 2024, which related to oral assessment by a university. I discuss this below. Other important points below include:

A further appeal decision on competence standards related to a drug test: Truman v SPL Powerlines, 2026. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the case, at least outside the specific facts. See below Technical note: Truman case on drug test.

Examples of competence standards given in official guidance (below) – which is not binding – include:

  • for universities, demonstrating a particular standard of knowledge of certain areas of law to obtain the degree
  • for professional exam bodies, requiring a certain standard of eyesight for a pilot’s qualification (presumably a ‘medical’ standard), or having a certain level of knowledge of the UK taxation system for an accountancy qualification.
    (For more detail, see official guidance (below).)

Part of the guidance – the pre-EqA 2008 Code, below Guidance: Professional exam bodies – goes on to say that a requirement or condition only amounts to a competence standard if its purpose is to demonstrate a particular level of competence or ability (this aligns with the EqA definition). So the 2008 Code says that a requirement that a person has, for example, a certain length of experience of doing something will not be a competence standard if it does not determine a particular level of competence or ability, and gives examples: para 8.29 below.

The Technical Guidance on universities, 2014, says it must be a ‘relevant’ competence or ability which is to be demonstrated: see below Does the standard need to be ‘relevant’?

Focus here on what the competence standard is, not what is justified

On this page I’m focussing on what the competence standard is (or was), not whether the competence standard is justified. For example, in the Abrahart case below, the university argued that ability to explain and defend one’s work orally was a core competency of a professional physicist. That could be relevant to whether – if it was a competence standard – it was justified (above) in a claim under s.19 EqA. But whether the standard was justified is different from whether, on the evidence (see eg the factors in Abrahart), the student’s oral ability was the competence standard that the university (or professional exam body) chose to apply. The fact that there would be a reason to apply a particular competence standard may be relevant evidence in deciding what standard was chosen, but is not the main issue.

Also, although I speak in the previous paragraph of what competence standard the university or exam body chose, the court or tribunal will of course need to apply the legal EqA definition of ‘competence standard’ to the facts found by it. That may perhaps be different from what the university etc thought was legally the ‘competence standard’.

Example: Abrahart case

The High Court upheld a County Court decision that, on the facts, the university’s competence standard did not require oral assessments of a physics student.

University of Bristol v Abrahart, [2024] EWHC 299 (KB), High Court
This tragic case involved a physics student, Natasha, with depression and social anxiety disorder. The university continued to seek to use oral interviews (about laboratory experiments) to assess her, even though she failed to attend most of them. This continued after the university knew that she had a mental health problem connected to the interviews. She committed suicide in her flat on the day when the university wanted her to be part of a group giving an assessed oral conference presentation. The High Court upheld the County Court’s decision that the university was liable under the EqA.

Among other things, the university argued that assessing Natasha’s ability to explain and defend her work orally in this course module, Practical Physics 203, was a ‘competence standard’, as this was a core competency of a professional physicist. If this was a competence standard, the reasonable adjustment duty could not alter the fact that assessments must be oral. However, the County Court, upheld by the High Court, decided that on the facts this was not a competence standard (see below for reasons).

In deciding that the competence standard in this case did not relate specifically to oral skills, factors that were (or may have been) important include the following:

  • In the university’s documentation which mapped course learning outcomes to mandatory units, there was no Intended Learning Outcome (ILO) for this module referring to oral communication skills. (Comment: Universities may now be more careful what their documentation says about competence standards.)
  • The marking criteria did not test for presentation skills at all, still less oral presentation skills. They awarded marks for 13 criteria under the headings ‘Understanding, Experimental results, Notebook and organisation, and critical sense and creativity’.
  • The Unit Director for this course module/unit had given evidence that it was a core competence for the student to speak critically of their own work and this required communication but not necessarily in an oral way.
  • There was evidence that for other students doing the same or almost the same course, recommendations from Disability Services included, for example, discussing alternatives to group work and presentations.

I set out at University of Bristol v Abrahart>Competence standards in this case (High Court) the parties’ arguments, and what the High Court said in upholding the County Court’s decision that this was not a competence standard. I do so at some length, as it shows how the courts may approach decisions on what is a competence standard. One important point was the university’s internal documentation; universities may now be more careful what their documentation says about competence standards. (To repeat, even if something is a competence standard, it may still be challenged in a claim under s.19 EqA (or perhaps s.15): above Competence standards can be challenged through indirect discrimination.)

See also below Abrahart case on process inextricably linked with competence standard.

Process inextricably linked with competence standard

Sometimes the process of assessing whether a competence standard has been achieved is inextricably linked to the standard itself. The passing of an assessment may be conditional on having a practical skill or ability which must be demonstrated by completing a practical test. For example:

  • if a competence standard relates specifically to oral skills, these could not be assessed by a written test. So a written test would not be a reasonable adjustment (though one might challenge the oral requirement under eg s.19 EqA). However, it might be consistent with the competence standard to, say, have a less formal format.
  • as regards adjustments to time limits, if the competence standard itself relates to ability to do something within a particular timeframe, that will limit what reasonable adjustment can be made: see below Time limits.

There are numerous examples in the 2014 Technical guidance on universities (below) and pre-EqA 2008 Code on professional exam bodies (below).

Example: If a competence standard (eg of a university) relates specifically to French oral skills, it would not be a ‘reasonable adjustment’ for these to be assessed in writing.

An oral examination for a person training to be a Russian interpreter cannot be done in an alternative way, e.g. as a written examination, because the examination is to ascertain whether someone can speak Russian.
Para 8.31 of pre-EqA 2008 Code on professional exam bodies.

Note: However, para 8.20 of the Code gives an example that it may be reasonable to adjust the time of day when the oral exam takes place.

In University of Bristol v Abrahart, above, the university argued that a competence standard in a physics degree was explaining and defending her work orally. The court disgreed, saying she was required to speak critically of their own work but not necessarily in an oral way. Written assessment might therefore be – and in that case was – a reasonable adjustment.

The High Court in Abrahart criticised the statement in the EHRC’s Technical Guidance 2014 that the ‘ability to take the test may itself amount to a competence standard’: see below Abrahart case on process inextricably linked with competence standard. However, this is a relatively minor quibble. It does not alter the thrust of the guidance, that the competence standard may require a certain kind of assessment, eg oral skills can only be assessed orally.

The High Court in Abrahart [§186] though it important, where these types of issue arise (see further next heading), to identify on the evidence:

  • what competence or ability is being measured?
  • what are the standards which are being applied to determine whether a person has met the relevant level of competence? [presumably these are the ‘competence standards’ within the EqA]
  • what aspect of the process are methods of assessment of whether those standards have been met?

Abrahart case on process inextricably linked with competence standard

The High Court in Abrahart, above felt one should approach with caution the statement (below) in the EHRC Technical Guidance (2014) that in relatively rare circumstances, the ability to take the test may itself amount to a competence standard.

For example, said the court, a test of whether someone could change a car wheel would not simply assess whether they could do it all, but would involve standards or criteria which measure whether the task is deemed to have been completed. Those standards of competence could not be adjusted, but the practical test (which was the method of assessing whether the examinee has the required level of competence) could be adjusted. The standards of competence could not be measured without the examinee actually changing the wheel. However, it was important to keep in sharp focus the limits of the Sch 13 para 4(3) ‘exclusion zone’ (above Reasonable adjustments), so as to avoid results contrary to the inclusive purpose of the disability discrimination legislation. The court said: ‘The legislation allows for a common sense solution in the examples which I have given thus far, namely that it would not be a reasonable step for the requirement for the practical test to be dispensed with altogether. But, depending on what is being measured, it may be reasonable for the format of the practical test to be adjusted.’ [§180-184]

A French oral test was another example considered by the High Court. If what was being measured was simply the ability of the candidate physically to speak in French then the competency standard and the method of assessment would be one and the same. But if what was sought to be measured was a person’s fluency in oral French, the oral exam would be a method of assessment and the competence standard would be the criteria for assessing levels of fluency. If the ability to communicate face-to-face in French was being tested, the court outlined possible reasonable adjustments which might be considered (subject to reasonableness), such as sign language for a deaf student, providing questions in advance of the oral exam, or adjustments to where it took place, or to the number of people who were present etc. [§185]
(Note: ‘Fluency’ is an ambiguous term. And even so far as reasonable adjustments are excluded as being inconsistent with the competence standard, there would be the issue of whether the competence standard is justified under s19 and perhaps s.15 EqA: above Competence standards can be challenged through indirect discrimination.)

The High Court in Abrahart thought it important, where these types of issue arise in relation to a given assessment or examination, to identify on the evidence:

  • what competence or ability is being measured?
  • what are the standards which are being applied to determine whether a person has met the relevant level of competence?
  • what aspect of the process are methods of assessment of whether those standards have been met? [§186]

Inextricably linked: Technical guidance on further and higher education, 2014

Para 7.36 of the 2014 Technical guidance on universities says that sometimes the process of assessing whether a competence standard has been achieved is inextricably linked to the standard itself. ‘The passing of an assessment may be conditional upon having a practical skill or ability which must be demonstrated by completing a practical test. Therefore, in relatively rare circumstances, the ability to take the test may itself amount to a competence standard.’ (This last sentence was criticised in Abrahart: above Abrahart case on process inextricably linked with competence standard.)

The Technical guidance says that the duty to make reasonable adjustments does not include a duty to alter the competence standard. However this duty does apply to the process by which competence is assessed, so the education provider needs to consider this. The guidance gives various examples:

Example: An assessment for a practical course in car maintenance cannot be done solely as a written test, because the purpose of the test is to ascertain whether someone can complete car repairs.
Para 7.36 Technical guidance, 2014

Example: When assessing the competence standard of a person’s ability to read French it would be a reasonable adjustment to provide a visually impaired student with text in large font (if that was the adjustment the student required).
Para 7.38 Technical guidance, 2014

Example: A law student has severe arthritis in her hands. When assessing her level of knowledge, it might be a reasonable adjustment to provide an oral exam or viva instead of a timed handwritten exam. However, there may be an overlap between a competence standard and any process by which an individual is assessed against that standard.
Para 7.38 Technical guidance, 2014

Example: A woman taking a written test for a qualification in office administration asks the education provider for extra time for the test because she has dyslexia. This is likely to be a reasonable adjustment for the education provider to make. She also asks if she can leave out the questions asking her to write a business letter and to précis a document, because she feels that these questions would substantially disadvantage her because of her dyslexia. The education provider would not have to make this adjustment because these questions are there to determine her competence at writing and précising, so are part of the competence standard being tested.
Para 7.38 Technical guidance, 2014

Inextricably linked: pre-EqA 2008 Code on professional exam bodies

On situations where the assessment process is bound up with the competence standard, the old 2008 Code on professional exam bodies said:

8.31 Sometimes, of course, the process of assessing whether a competence standard has been achieved is inextricably linked to the standard itself. The conferment of some qualifications is conditional upon having a practical skill or ability which must be demonstrated by completing a practical test. The ability to take the test may itself amount to a competence standard.

Note: This last sentence, as it appeared in the 2014 Technical guidance on further and higher education, was criticised by the High Court in Abrahart: above Abrahart case on process inextricably linked with competence standard.

Para 8.31 of the 2008 Code went on to give some examples, including:

An oral examination for a person training to be a Russian interpreter cannot be done in an alternative way, e.g. as a written examination, because the examination is to ascertain whether someone can speak Russian.
Para 8.31 of pre-EqA 2008 Code

Note: However, para 8.20 of the Code below gives an example that it may be reasonable to adjust the time of day when the oral exam takes place.

A driving test for a heavy goods vehicle licence cannot be done solely as a written test because the purpose of the test is to ascertain whether someone can actually drive a heavy goods vehicle.
Para 8.31 of pre-EqA 2008 Code

The 2008 Code had some further examples at para 8.20 which dealt with the reasonable adjustment duty. These include one example where an adjustment to an exam for interpreters would (in contrast to the above example) be reasonable:

A woman with a mental health problem is informed that an oral examination for a diploma in interpreting and translation has been arranged for 8:30 am. The timing of the examination would substantially disadvantage the woman, because a side effect of her medication is extreme drowsiness for several hours after taking her morning dose – which prevents her from concentrating well. The qualifications body agrees to her request to take the examination later in the day.
Para 8.20 of pre-EqA 2008 Code

A woman with a learning disability is allowed extra time by a qualifications body to take a written examination. This is likely to be a reasonable adjustment for the qualifications body to make, because the trade which the woman wants to enter would not require written work to be done in a short amount of time, so the ability to write quickly is not a competence standard.
Para 8.20 of pre-EqA 2008 Code

A disabled man asks for twice as much time for a test in shorthand because his disability makes it impossible for him to write quickly. This is unlikely to be a reasonable adjustment for the qualifications body to make, because speed is an essential element of the shorthand qualification – in other words, it is likely to be a competence standard, and thus the duty to make reasonable adjustments does not apply.
Para 8.20 of pre-EqA 2008 Code

Time limits

In summary:

  • A court will need to consider what the ‘competence standard’ was as discussed above.
  • The competence standard itself may be challenged as being indirect discrimination, for example.
  • As regards the reasonable adjustment duty, even if the competence standard requires the ability to something within time constraints, that does not necessarily mean the particular time limit set for an exam is required by the competence standard. So far as not required by the competence standard, the reasonable adjustment duty may still apply.

An old (pre-EqA) Code of Practice on universities said:

A requirement that a person completes a test in a certain time period is not a competence standard unless the competence being tested is the ability to do something within a limited time period.
Para 5.74 of 2007 Code of Practice on post-16 education: Oral assessments at university: the rules>Official guidance. See too now para 7.35 of the 2014 Technical guidance, below.

However, a Court of Appeal judge pointed out in Burke v College of Law that even if the ability to work under a time constraint is a competence being tested, it does not necessarily follow that imposing a particular time constraint on an assessment is a competence standard, so as to be excluded from the reasonable adjustment duty. This case related to a professional exam for solicitors. The judge considered it clear, in this case, that the ability to work under a time constraint was a competence. However:

‘… Accepting that the ability to work at speed under time pressure is part of the competence which the examination is designed to test, the question then is: how do you test the ability to work at speed under time pressure? That, [the claimant’s lawyer] said, is a mode of testing and not the standard itself. If the mode of testing the ability to work under time pressure is part of the way in which that particular competence is assessed, then in principle it is capable of being subject to the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments. Put in that limited way, I consider that that point does have a real prospect of success. It is, I think, a general point applicable to examinations in general and that in my judgment provides sufficient reason for the grant of permission limited to that ground …’
Lewison LJ quoted in Burke v College of Law, [2012] EWCA Civ 37 at §6.

Note: The court did not need to consider this issue further, as it was decided the college had made adequate reasonable adjustments in any event.

The High Court in Abrahart, above discussed time limits to some extent, saying for example that if the purpose of a practical test of changing a wheel was also to assess whether the wheel could be changed at speed then the time allocated for the performance of this task would be an additional standard by which this competence was measured [§183]. However time limits were not relevant in that case, and the court did not discuss the nuances of what the Court of Appeal said in Burke above.

On qualifications bodies, see also Professional exam bodies>Time limits in professional exams.

In any event, even where the reasonable adjustment duty is excluded by Sch 13 para 4(2)(3) because the time limit is a competence standard, a disabled student etc can rely on rights against the university or professional exam body under s.19 EqA and perhaps s.15: above Competence standards can be challenged through indirect discrimination.

A university refuses a student who stammers extra time in her oral assessment, saying the time limit is a competence standard and so cannot be adjusted.

Even if the court agrees there is no reasonable adjustment claim for that reason, if the lack of extra time results in the student being marked down – eg she could not say enough – she is likely to be able to claim discrimination arising from disability (s.15) provided the university had actual or constructive knowledge of the disability.

The university would have a defence if it showed its unfavourable treatment (marking down) was sufficiently justified (Oral assessments at university: the rules>Brief points on justification under ss.15 and 19). However it is difficult to imagine a situation where this would be justified – except perhaps rare professional contexts like training simultaneous interpreters.

She could also have a claim for indirect discrimination under s.19 EqA, unless the university shows the time limit is justified.

Time limits: Technical guidance on further and higher education, 2014

The Technical guidance on further and higher education, 2014 says:

7.35 On the other hand, a condition that a person can, for example, do something within a certain period of time will not be a competence standard if it does not determine a particular level of competence or ability.

Example: A requirement that a person completes a test in a certain time period is not a competence standard unless the competence being tested is the ability to do something within a limited time period.

Example: A woman taking a written test for a qualification in office administration asks the education provider for extra time for the test because she has dyslexia. This is likely to be a reasonable adjustment for the education provider to make. She also asks if she can leave out the questions asking her to write a business letter and to précis a document, because she feels that these questions would substantially disadvantage her because of her dyslexia. The education provider would not have to make this adjustment because these questions are there to determine her competence at writing and précising, so are part of the competence standard being tested.
Para 7.38 Technical guidance, 2014

Time limits: pre-EqA 2008 Code on professional exam bodies

The old 2008 Code on professional exam bodies included:

A woman with a learning disability is allowed extra time by a qualifications body to take a written examination. This is likely to be a reasonable adjustment for the qualifications body to make, because the trade which the woman wants to enter would not require written work to be done in a short amount of time, so the ability to write quickly is not a competence standard.
Para 8.20 of pre-EqA 2008 Code

Note: This and the next example might be criticised as conflating the questions of whether the time limit is justified (and so not eg indirect discrimination), and whether it is a ‘competence standard’: above Focus here on what the competence standard is, not what is justified. The approach of the Code may link with a view that the competence standard needs to be ‘relevant’, below.

A disabled man asks for twice as much time for a test in shorthand because his disability makes it impossible for him to write quickly. This is unlikely to be a reasonable adjustment for the qualifications body to make, because speed is an essential element of the shorthand qualification – in other words, it is likely to be a competence standard, and thus the duty to make reasonable adjustments does not apply.
Para 8.20 of pre-EqA 2008 Code

How far is competence standard focused on workplace situation?

There may be a question whether the competence standard relates to ability to do the thing specifically in the workplace, or to do it more generally including in a pressurised exam situation: Professional exam bodies>Uncertainties: How far is competence standard focused on workplace situation? The first option seems easier to justify on an indirect discrimination claim under s.19 EqA.

Does the standard need to be ‘relevant’?

The 2014 Technical guidance (para 7.34) says that a requirement is only a competence standard ‘if its purpose is to demonstrate a particular level of a relevant competence or ability such as a requirement that a person has a particular level of relevant knowledge of a subject’. So the guidance on universities seems to read the word ‘relevant’ into the statutory definition.

Therefore para 7.34 says that, for example, a requirement to demonstrate ‘a high level of physical fitness’ is unlikely to be a competence standard for admission to a choreography course which is predominately theory-based and does not involve any strenuous physical activity. But, it continues, a requirement for students studying for a law degree to demonstrate a particular standard of knowledge of certain areas of law in order to obtain the degree is a competence standard.

I am not aware of any case law on this. However even if one does not read ‘relevant’ into the definition, an organisation is likely to find it very difficult justify that physical fitness requirement for this type of course on a claim under s.19 EqA (or s.15 for universities), which apply even if it is a ‘competence standard’.

The examples given in the Technical guidance relate to admission criteria (Oral assessments at university: the rules>Competence standards: Admission criteria), rather than exams during or at the end of the course. Perhaps the guidance sees ‘relevance’ as applying mainly to admission criteria. However, examples in para 8.20 of a pre-EqA Code might be seen as implying a similar approach for professional exams: above Time limits: pre-EqA 2008 Code on professional exam bodies.

Official guidance

Guidance: Universities

The Technical guidance on further and higher education, 2014 includes:

7.34 Education providers are likely to impose various requirements and conditions in respect of courses. However, any such requirement or condition only amounts to a competence standard if its purpose is to demonstrate a particular level of a relevant competence or ability such as a requirement that a person has a particular level of relevant knowledge of a subject.

Example: The admissions criteria for a course in choreography include a requirement to demonstrate ‘a high level of physical fitness’. The course itself, however, is predominately theory-based and does not involve any strenuous physical activity. This is unlikely to be a competence standard.

Example: The requirement for students studying for a law degree to demonstrate a particular standard of knowledge of certain areas of law in order to obtain the degree is a competence standard.


7.35 On the other hand, a condition that a person can, for example, do something within a certain period of time will not be a competence standard if it does not determine a particular level of competence or ability.

Example: A requirement that a person completes a test in a certain time period is not a competence standard unless the competence being tested is the ability to do something within a limited time period. [On time limits, see above Time limits.]

From para 7.36 the guidance discusses where the assessment process is inextricably linked with the competence standard: above Inextricably linked: Technical guidance on further and higher education, 2014.

Guidance: Professional exam bodies

There is a 2008, so pre-EqA, Code of Practice on qualifications bodies issued under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I often call it the 2008 Code. Like any equality Code of Practice or guidance, it is not binding, even if it is still in force. See on this Professional exam bodies>Code of Practice.

This 2008 Code on professional exam bodies explains that, for example, having a certain standard of eyesight is a competence standard required for a pilot’s qualification – presumably a ‘medical’ standard within EqA s.54(6). Having a certain level of knowledge of the UK taxation system is a competence standard for an accountancy qualification (para 8.27 of the Code). The 2008 Code goes on to say:

8.28 Qualifications bodies are likely to impose various requirements and conditions upon the conferment of a professional or trade qualification. However, any such requirement or condition only amounts to a competence standard if its purpose is to demonstrate a particular level of competence or ability. A requirement that a person has a particular level of knowledge of a subject, for example, or has the strength or ability to carry out a particular task or activity within a set period of time, would probably be a competence standard. [On time limits, see above Time limits.]

8.29 On the other hand, a condition that a person has, for example, a certain length of experience of doing something will not be a competence standard if it does not determine a particular level of competence or ability. The following are examples of requirements which are therefore unlikely to amount to competence standards:

  • a requirement that a candidate must have at least ten years continuous experience (a person who has two periods of experience which total ten years may have equivalent ability and experience)
  • a requirement that a candidate must complete twelve qualifying sessions (for qualification as a barrister)
  • a requirement that a candidate must be currently professionally employed in a particular field.
    2008 Code of Practice on professional exam bodies.

Para 8.31 discusses where the assessment process is inextricably linked with the competence standard: above Inextricably linked: pre-EqA 2008 Code on professional exam bodies.

Guidance: Cross-application

Since the definition of ‘competence standards’ is the same for both universities and professional exam bodies, guidance on one should also be helpful on the other.

Technical note: Truman case on drug test

Truman v SPL Powerlines UK [2026] EAT 54
The claimant was applying for a job with Powerlines, an independent overhead line electrification provider. This type of safety-critical work in the rail industry required a Sentinel card from Network Rail, which included a drugs and alcohol (D&A) test. The claimant failed the D&A test, because as he said (and the tribunal accepted) he had been prescribed medical cannabis to manage pain from his disability. A policy of Network Rail (at para 9.4.4) stated that a ‘fail’ should be converted to a ‘pass’ if the presence of a drug was ‘consistent with declared and acceptable medication’ and other requirements were met. The employment tribunal held that under para 9.4.4 he should have passed the D&A test, and retained his card.

The EAT held Network Rail to be liable as a qualifications body within ss.53-54 EqA. However, Network Rail argued that as regards his claim under s.15 EqA, the alleged disability discrimination was the application of a competence standard, so his claim was blocked by s.53(7) EqA (above Discrimination arising from disability). The claimant’s response to this was that para 9.4.4 was part of Network Rail’s competence standard, so because Network Rail had failed to apply para 9.4.4, it had not applied its competence standard and could not rely on s.53(7).

The EAT held that para 9.4.4 was not part of Network Rail’s competence standard, but part of the process for assessing it. Network Rail’s failure to apply it was analogous to a body setting an exam and failing to apply its own policy of providing a large print paper to a visually impaired candidate. The body would still have applied its competence standard.

The EAT held that the s.15 claim was therefore blocked by s.53(7). However, potential remedies included claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments, and/or indirect discrimination.

I find this EAT decision problematic. The key problem seems to me that the EAT did not really define what the competence standard was. Also, in the EAT’s example of providing a large print exam paper to those with a visual disability, all examinees are still required to answer the same questions. The para 9.4.4 policy – of passing certain people despite being over the stated drug limits – is more akin to changing or disapplying some of the questions asked in the exam paper. It does not seem to be analogous to para 9.4.4. See in more detail Truman v SPL Powerlines UK>Comment: Was policy on medications part of the competence standard?

Broadly speaking, EAT decisions are binding on employment tribunals, unless overruled in future or distinguished on the facts. However, given the difficulty of extracting generally applicable principles which could adequately explain this decision, I think it would be hard to apply except to very similar facts.

25th anniversary of stammeringlaw, 1999-2024