Click the case name for better results:

Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons: EAT 14 Jul 2005

EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. Judges: His Honour Peter Clark Citations: [2005] UKEAT 0318 – 05 – 2907, UKEAT/0319/05/TM, UKEAT/0318/05/TM, [2005] ICR 1647, UKEAT/0320/05/TM, [2005] IRLR 836 Links: Bailii, EATn Statutes: Employment Tribunal Rules 2004 20(1) … Continue reading Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons: EAT 14 Jul 2005

Noor v Foreign and Commonwealth Office: EAT 14 Feb 2011

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal The Employment Judge erred in striking out the Claimant’s claim. The Claimant, a job applicant, was interviewed about a competency different to that which had been (mistakenly) set out in the advertisement for the post. The Employment Judge correctly proceeded on the basis that … Continue reading Noor v Foreign and Commonwealth Office: EAT 14 Feb 2011

Richmond Court (Swansea) Ltd v Williams: CA 14 Dec 2006

Section 24 of the 1995 Act requires the court ‘(i) to identify the treatment of the disabled person that is alleged to constitute discrimination, (ii) to identify the reason for that treatment, (iii) to determine whether the reason relates to the disabled person’s disability, (iv) to identify the comparators, namely persons to whom that reason … Continue reading Richmond Court (Swansea) Ltd v Williams: CA 14 Dec 2006

NM (Disability Discrimination) Iraq: IAT 25 Mar 2008

IAT A person who cannot meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules is unlikely to be able to show that the decision was contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended) by reason of the sponsor’s disability or perhaps at all. Judges: Ockleton DP, O’Malley DIJ Citations: [2008] UKAIT 00026 Links: Bailii Immigration Updated: … Continue reading NM (Disability Discrimination) Iraq: IAT 25 Mar 2008

College of Ripon and York St John v Dr Hobbs: EAT 14 Nov 2001

The college appealed a finding that the applicant who had been found to be disabled within the Act, but denied discrimination. They appealed the finding of the tribunal which had failed to identify whether the disability was mental or physical. Held: There was sufficient evidence of impairment to constitute disability. The expert evidence was not … Continue reading College of Ripon and York St John v Dr Hobbs: EAT 14 Nov 2001

The Department for Work and Pensions v Conyers: EAT 5 Nov 2014

EAT Disability Discrimination: Disability – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Perversity – Disability – whether evidence to support finding – The Claimant had two periods of absence during the latter part of her employment. She had conceded in her witness statement and evidence that she was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability … Continue reading The Department for Work and Pensions v Conyers: EAT 5 Nov 2014

General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza: EAT 10 Oct 2014

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal The Employment Tribunal, by a majority, found that the Respondent was in breach of a duty to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant because it would have been a reasonable adjustment to disregard a final written warning. Held: (1) The majority had been … Continue reading General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza: EAT 10 Oct 2014

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the council sought possession when it discovered that he had sublet. Held: Section 23(3)(c) … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation after their primary discrimination claims. Held: The 1975 and 1976 Acts were similarly phrased and the wording in the 1995 … Continue reading Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2): HL 20 Oct 1995

The applicant complained that she was dismissed when her employers learned that she was pregnant. Held: 1(1) (a) and 5(3) of the 1975 Act were to be interpreted as meaning that where a woman had been engaged for an indefinite period, the fact that pregnancy was the reason for her temporary unavailability at a time … Continue reading Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2): HL 20 Oct 1995

Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority: EAT 1 Mar 1995

The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time. Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing discrimination: ‘the tribunal erred in law in failing to treat the acts complained of on regrading and failure to … Continue reading Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority: EAT 1 Mar 1995

The Prince’s Trust v Donelan (Disability Discrimination : Disability Related Discrimination): EAT 14 Mar 2013

EAT Disability Discrimination : Disability Related DiscriminationThe Respondent employer appealed against the findings of the Employment Tribunal that the Claimant had been subject to disability related discrimination and harassment. The principal ground of appeal was that the ET failed to appreciate the full impact of London Borough of Lewisham (2008) on the need for a … Continue reading The Prince’s Trust v Donelan (Disability Discrimination : Disability Related Discrimination): EAT 14 Mar 2013

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Project Management Institute v Latif: EAT 10 May 2007

EAT The Appellant is a qualifying body, subject to section 14 of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Tribunal found that it had failed to make a reasonable adjustment in the arrangements it made for sitting an examination. In so doing the Tribunal misdirected itself on certain aspects of law. However, the EAT held that these … Continue reading Project Management Institute v Latif: EAT 10 May 2007

Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 27 May 1999

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression. Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. Peter Clark J said: ‘There was no evidence as to the effect on … Continue reading Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 27 May 1999

Post Office v Adekeye: CA 13 Nov 1996

Race discrimination which took place after a dismissal was not unlawful within the section, since that first required the context of employment, and after the dismissal, the applicant was no longer in that employment. The natural meaning of the phrase ’employed by him’ in section 4 (2) was confined to persons employed at the time … Continue reading Post Office v Adekeye: CA 13 Nov 1996

Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz: CA 1 Jul 2004

The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination. Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the reasonableness of making a possession order, and in situations where it was enforcing a possession … Continue reading Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz: CA 1 Jul 2004

The Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton: EAT 16 Dec 2010

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION Disability related discrimination Direct disability discrimination An Employment Tribunal failed to focus on the wording of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in concluding there had been no reasonable adjustment when the employer failed further to extend the benefits of the sick pay scheme to her, when they were already well beyond that … Continue reading The Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton: EAT 16 Dec 2010

X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Others: CA 26 Jan 2011

The court was asked whether the claimant, a volunteer worker with the respondent had the protection of the 1995 Act in that work as a worker, despite nnot being employed. Judges: Rix, Elias, Tomlinson LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 28, (2011) 118 BMLR 147, [2011] ICR 460, [2011] 2 CMLR 18, [2011] Eq LR 309, … Continue reading X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Others: CA 26 Jan 2011

Wigginton v Cowie and Others (T/A Baxter International (A Partnership)): EAT 18 Jun 2010

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability Employment Tribunal decision pre-dated House of Lords decision in SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] IRLR 746, disapproving Employment Appeal Tribunal approach in Latchman [2002] ICR 1453 as to meaning of word ‘likely’ in para. 2(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Appeal allowed on Latchman misdirection and … Continue reading Wigginton v Cowie and Others (T/A Baxter International (A Partnership)): EAT 18 Jun 2010

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Job Centre Plus) and Others v Wilson: EAT 19 Feb 2010

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments The Employment Tribunal erred in law in failing to properly apply s. 18B of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to the evidence and to make the necessary findings of fact about reasonable adjustments: Smiths Detection – Watford Ltd v Berriman (UKEAT/0712/04/CK) and Romec Ltd v Rudham (UKEAT/0069/DA) applies. Judges: Birtles … Continue reading Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Job Centre Plus) and Others v Wilson: EAT 19 Feb 2010

Domb and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Another: CA 8 Sep 2009

The applicants sought to challenge a decision by the authority to charge for various home care services provided to the disabled applicants. They alleged that the charges were discriminatory. Held: Officials reporting to or advising Ministers/other public authority decision makers, on matters material to the discharge of the duty, must not merely tell the Minister/decision … Continue reading Domb and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Another: CA 8 Sep 2009

N, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Independent Appeal Panel: CA 24 Feb 2009

The case of Malcolm has overruled Novacold. Toulson LJ said: ‘In Malcolm the House of Lords was concerned with the construction of the same phrase in Part III of the Act. It overruled the decision in Clark v Novacold and held that the proper comparator was someone who had behaved in the same way as … Continue reading N, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Independent Appeal Panel: CA 24 Feb 2009

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Macklin: EAT 30 Nov 2007

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATIONThe EAT held that there were arguable errors in the ET’s approach to the factual questions raised by sections 5 and 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 before their repeal. Judges: Keith J Citations: [2007] UKEAT 0370 – 07 – 3011 Links: Bailii Employment, Discrimination Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266652

S v Floyd, Equality and Human Rights Commission: CA 18 Mar 2008

The court considered the relationship between the two Acts. The assured tenant had fallen into arrears, and was subject to an order for possession. He claimed that his disability required the court not to make an order for possession against her, and that arrears of payable housing benefits would clear the debt. Held: The appeal … Continue reading S v Floyd, Equality and Human Rights Commission: CA 18 Mar 2008

Cyprus Airways Ltd v Lambrou: EAT 1 May 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal On 14 October 2004 the Claimant claimed constructive unfair dismissal arising out of four acts of the Respondent. No grievance pursuant to the 2004 Regulations had been presented. The Employment Tribunal allowed the case to proceed at a pre-hearing review … Continue reading Cyprus Airways Ltd v Lambrou: EAT 1 May 2007

Pugh v National Assembly for Wales: EAT 26 Sep 2006

EAT The ET dismissed as premature the Claimant”s application for disability discrimination because the application was made less than 28 days after the Claimant”s grievance had been raised in a letter dated 21st April 2005. In fact there was an earlier letter that constituted a written grievance that was before the ET but its significance … Continue reading Pugh v National Assembly for Wales: EAT 26 Sep 2006

Taylor v OCS Group Ltd: CA 31 May 2006

The employer appealed against findings of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The employee worked in IT. He was profoundly deaf, but could lip read and read sign language. He had been accused of obtaining improper access to a senior staff member’s emails. During the disciplinary hearing, he had been assisted by an interpreter for part … Continue reading Taylor v OCS Group Ltd: CA 31 May 2006

High Quality Lifestyles Ltd v Watts: EAT 10 Apr 2006

EAT The Employment Tribunal had erred in its construction of direct discrimination under s3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended when it failed to construct a correct hypothetical comparator for the Claimant who was an HIV+ care worker dismissed because of the risk of transmission to users of the Respondent’s health care facilities. … Continue reading High Quality Lifestyles Ltd v Watts: EAT 10 Apr 2006

1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: EAT 2 Dec 2003

The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act. Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not that of a member of that chambers so as to attract … Continue reading 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: EAT 2 Dec 2003

Smiths Detection – Watford Ltd v Berriman: EAT 9 Aug 2005

EAT The Employment Tribunal was wrong to find that the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant under Section 6(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because it omitted to find what arrangements made by or on behalf of the Respondent, or which physical feature of the Respondent’s premises, placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. … Continue reading Smiths Detection – Watford Ltd v Berriman: EAT 9 Aug 2005

Murphy v Slough Borough Council Governing Body of Langleywood School: CA 16 Feb 2005

The court was asked as to who was the appropriate respondent when a claim for disability discrimination is brought by a teacher employed at a maintained community school with a delegated budget. The teacher’s contract of employment is with the local education authority, but the Governing Body of such a school is given extensive employment … Continue reading Murphy v Slough Borough Council Governing Body of Langleywood School: CA 16 Feb 2005

D Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark: CA 2003

Simon Brown LJ said: ‘As will readily be seen, it provides (perhaps rather surprisingly) that someone is to be treated as disabled even though they are not in fact disabled (even, that is, where they suffer no substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities) if, without the medical treatment they … Continue reading D Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark: CA 2003

Greenwood v British Airways Plc: EAT 17 Jun 1999

The tribunal considered a disability discrimination appeal. Held: ‘In our judgment the tribunal fell into error by considering the question of disability only as at the date of the alleged discriminatory act. We are quite satisfied, as the Guidance makes clear, that the tribunal should consider the adverse effects of the applicant’s condition up to … Continue reading Greenwood v British Airways Plc: EAT 17 Jun 1999

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Harley: EAT 19 Feb 2001

Appeal against a finding that a claim of disability discrimination was in time. Judges: Charles J Citations: [2001] UKEAT 518 – 00 – 1902, EAT/518/00 Links: Bailii, EAT Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Cited by: See Also – Harley v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 18-Sep-2001 Application for hearing to be postponed. . … Continue reading Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Harley: EAT 19 Feb 2001

Turner v Scope (A Registered Charity): EAT 18 Dec 2002

Appeal from rejection of claim for constructive unfair dismissal and of discrimination. Judges: Timothy Brennan QC Rec Citations: [2002] UKEAT 0071 – 02 – 1812 Links: Bailii Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah CA 1980 The court considered the meaning of ‘detriment’ in discrimination … Continue reading Turner v Scope (A Registered Charity): EAT 18 Dec 2002

Catherall v Michelin Tyre Plc: EAT 21 Oct 2002

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability. Judges: Nelson J Citations: [2002] UKEAT 915 – 01 – 2110, EAT/915/01, [2003] IRLR 61 Links: Bailii, EAT Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4 Citing: See Also – Catherall v Michelin Tyres Plc EAT 21-Nov-2001 . . Cited by: Cited – Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council EAT 19-Aug-2003 EAT Disability … Continue reading Catherall v Michelin Tyre Plc: EAT 21 Oct 2002

Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Limited: CA 17 Feb 2004

Can an employer’s failure to make adjustments to accommodate a disabled employee be unreasonable but justified? Held: The justification under 5(2)(b) must be something other than the circumstances which are taken into account for the purpose of section 6(1): ‘The clear purpose of s.5(5) is to deny to an employer who has treated a disabled … Continue reading Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Limited: CA 17 Feb 2004

Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council: EAT 19 Aug 2003

EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to accommodate her disability, that they had treated her less favourably for reasons relating to her disability; and in the second case presented in 2000 that … Continue reading Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council: EAT 19 Aug 2003

Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge: EAT 4 Mar 2003

EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation. Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed. ‘There must be many cases in which the disabled person has been placed at a substantial disadvantage in the workplace, but in … Continue reading Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge: EAT 4 Mar 2003

Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a ‘possession’ within the Convention or the discrimination was arbitrary so as to breach the applicants human rights. Held: … Continue reading Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

Gate Gourmet v J B Jangra: EAT 12 Dec 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – OtherThe employer appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She suffered an apparently minor injury, but which led to long standing disability with varying diagnoses. The company doctor came to consider it would be a long time before she could return. She was dismissed for capability. Held: There was … Continue reading Gate Gourmet v J B Jangra: EAT 12 Dec 2000

Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd: EAT 7 Dec 2001

EAT The EAT considered the expression ‘likely to last’ in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Act, and stated: ‘It is always tempting to accord, and is often appropriate, when it is charged with finding out what at some earlier date the future would then have seem to hold, to have regard to what the future in … Continue reading Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd: EAT 7 Dec 2001

Murphy v Sheffield Hallam University: EAT 11 Jan 2000

The claimant challenged refusal of his claim of discrimination. He was profoundly deaf. He applied for work, and indicated his disability, but no provision was made for a signer to appear at the interview. The interview was re-arranged, but he failed. Held: The tribunal gave reasons for finding that the disability had played no part … Continue reading Murphy v Sheffield Hallam University: EAT 11 Jan 2000

Woodlands School (Newton Stewart) Ltd v Gordon: EAT 5 Oct 2001

The employer appealed against a finding of disability discrimination. The tribunal was claimed not to have taken account of the codes of practice and the need for a risk assessment. Held: The absence of a risk assessment mean that no adjustment had been considered, and no justification was available. The finding was essentially under 5(1). … Continue reading Woodlands School (Newton Stewart) Ltd v Gordon: EAT 5 Oct 2001

Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co: HL 1903

A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should be valued as at the beginning of the period or at its value during the … Continue reading Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co: HL 1903

Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’): HL 28 Mar 2007

The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq war broke out, under which the charterer could have terminated the charter as of right. The defendant … Continue reading Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’): HL 28 Mar 2007

Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials: EAT 27 Jan 1994

The industrial tribunal had refused the applicant an extension of time. Held: The Tribunal mistook the law in holding that it could grant a review of its decision because the employee’s case had not been properly argued at the preliminary hearing as a result of her representative’s shortcomings. It would not be in the interests … Continue reading Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials: EAT 27 Jan 1994

Rugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd: EAT 28 Aug 2001

Both cases questioned the extent, as a disability, of functional or psychological ‘overlay’, where there may be no medical condition underlying the symptoms which the employee claims to be present. Neither claimant had asserted any psychological disability. The employees appealed a refusal that they be considered to suffer a disability. ‘Impairment’, has to mean some … Continue reading Rugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd: EAT 28 Aug 2001

Stec and Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Apr 2006

(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination. Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences arose from the differences in pensionable ages for men and women introduced in 1940 in order to help remedy severe social inequalities … Continue reading Stec and Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Apr 2006

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales): SC 9 Feb 2015

The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered. Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly, in that it did not relate to any of the subjects listed … Continue reading Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales): SC 9 Feb 2015

DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 May 2019

Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory. Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to encourage claimants back into work. It was said that thus contradicted the other policy of providing no free … Continue reading DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 May 2019

Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Jul 2010

The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or less, made ineffective any right for judicial review. Held: The request was granted, and the 2010 … Continue reading Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Jul 2010

Law Hospitals NHS Trust v Rush: SCS 13 Jun 2001

The claimant had said that the effect of her dyslexia was to inhibit her career progress. Held:It was right for a tribunal to have regard to how an applicant could carry out duties at work in deciding whether she was within the Disability Discrimination Act. Evidence of how the claimant carries out normal day-to-day activities … Continue reading Law Hospitals NHS Trust v Rush: SCS 13 Jun 2001

Marshall v The Learning Trust and Others: EAT 21 Jul 2015

EAT Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke Two live issues: (1) The Appellant was not permitted to run a new argument on aiding and abetting under section 57 Disability Discrimination Act 1995. (2) Having heard live evidence I found that the Appellant’s representative (her husband) had not pursued a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal at … Continue reading Marshall v The Learning Trust and Others: EAT 21 Jul 2015

Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold): CA 25 Mar 1999

The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear idea of when it would be possible for him … Continue reading Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold): CA 25 Mar 1999

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm: HL 25 Jun 2008

Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make reasonable adjustments. Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded. … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm: HL 25 Jun 2008

Fox v British Airways Plc (Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal): EAT 22 Apr 2015

Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments Unfair Dismissal – fairness of the decision to dismiss In circumstances where the advice available to the employer had materially changed between the taking of the decision to dismiss and the dismissal itself, a question arose as to whether this impacted upon the fairness … Continue reading Fox v British Airways Plc (Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal): EAT 22 Apr 2015

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton and Others: CA 21 Jul 2011

Appeal from possession order – house occupied by school caretaker. Maurice Kay VP, Carnwath, Lloyf LJJ [2011] EWCA Civ 834, [2011] Eq LR 1167, [2011] HLR 46, [2011] NPC 79, (2011) 14 CCL Rep 617, [2011] 30 EG 57, [2012] PTSR 56 Bailii Disability Discrimination Act 1995 49A, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Human … Continue reading Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton and Others: CA 21 Jul 2011

Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 1): HL 3 Mar 1993

Questions on pregnancy dismissals included unavailability at required time. The correct comparison under the Act of 1975 was between the pregnant woman and: ‘a hypothetical man who would also be unavailable at the critical time. The relevant circumstance for the purposes of the comparison required by section 5(3) to be made is expected unavailability at … Continue reading Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 1): HL 3 Mar 1993

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005

Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted. Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant had to establish facts allowing the tribunal to conclude, in the … Continue reading Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005

Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd: CA 17 Mar 2010

The tenant had been ordered to leave her flat. She had kept a dog in breach of her tenancy agreement. The landlord had terminated the assured shorthold tenancy by a section 21 notice. She said that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments to allow for her disability, and that the dog was critical to … Continue reading Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd: CA 17 Mar 2010

McDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: SC 6 Jul 2011

The claimant, a former prima ballerina, had suffered injury as she grew old. She came to suffer a condition requiring her to urinate at several points during each night. The respondent had been providing a carer to stay with her each night to provide the assistance neceesary to access the commode. The claimant now appealed … Continue reading McDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: SC 6 Jul 2011

Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield: CA 12 Oct 2010

The claimant sought a declaration that the duty set out in the 1995 Act applies to the discharge of duties, and to the exercise of powers, by local housing authorities under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 being the part entitled ‘Homelessness’. The defendant argued that (1) the section concerned only the general formulation … Continue reading Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield: CA 12 Oct 2010

Council of The City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Marsden (Rev 1): EAT 23 Jan 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review Claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 dismissed at PHR because Claimant not available to give evidence as to long-term effect of injury – Judge willing to offer adjournment if absence of Claimant had been explained and adjournment applied for – Counsel tells Judge that he does not know reason … Continue reading Council of The City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Marsden (Rev 1): EAT 23 Jan 2010

Brown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 18 Dec 2008

Having ‘due regard’ is not Obligation to do The claimant sought to challenge the decision to close her local post office on the basis that being retired and disabled and without a car in a rural area, the office was essential and the decision unsupportable. In particular she challenged the removal of post offices from … Continue reading Brown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 18 Dec 2008

Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International: HL 12 Jun 1997

Allowance of Stigma Damages The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination. Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that the employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause conduct itself in … Continue reading Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International: HL 12 Jun 1997

X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another: SC 12 Dec 2012

The appellant was disabled, had legal qualifications, and worked with the respondent as a volunteer. She had sought assistance under the Disability Discrimination Act, now the 2012 Act, saying that she counted as a worker. The tribunal and CA had found no contractual relationship. She said that under the 2000 Directive (the Framework Directive ‘FD’) … Continue reading X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another: SC 12 Dec 2012

Post Office v Jones: CA 5 Jun 2001

The employee had become diabetic. Upon his coming to require insulin, the employer undertook a new risk assessment, and restricted his duties as a driver. He claimed disability discrimination. At the tribunal, both employer and employee brought medical evidence. Held: The employer’s duties under the Act had to be seen in the context of the … Continue reading Post Office v Jones: CA 5 Jun 2001

J v DLA Piper UK Llp: EAT 15 Jun 2010

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – DisabilityJob offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time (June 2008) Claimant not suffering from ‘clinical depression’ amounting to a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.Appeal allowed, and … Continue reading J v DLA Piper UK Llp: EAT 15 Jun 2010

Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle: CA 8 Jul 2004

The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for discrimination. The employer contended that she had not been dismissed within the section. Held: There had been conflicting … Continue reading Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle: CA 8 Jul 2004

Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

Sympathetic construction of national legislation LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC Directive designed to protect companies and third parties from the adverse effects of the doctrine of nullity. … Continue reading Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

B, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: Admn 27 Jan 2009

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision to discontinue a prosecution, saying that the respondent had failed to consider his duties under the 1995 Act. The prosecution had been discontinued for the victim’s mental instability and quality as a witness. Held: The conclusion drawn by the defendant did not follow from the medical … Continue reading B, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: Admn 27 Jan 2009

Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised. Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal is not … Continue reading Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm): HL 20 Jul 2000

Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers. Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in both criminal and civil proceedings is no longer appropriate or in the public interest and is removed: ‘The standard … Continue reading Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm): HL 20 Jul 2000

law index

Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index