Click the case name for better results:

McAuley Catholic High School v CC, PC and another: Admn 11 Dec 2003

Judges: Silner J Citations: [2003] EWHC 3045 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – K v The School and the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal CA 6-Mar-2007 The child was subject to the school eventually declined to clean and change him. The mother claimed that the … Continue reading McAuley Catholic High School v CC, PC and another: Admn 11 Dec 2003

K v The School and the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal: CA 6 Mar 2007

The child was subject to the school eventually declined to clean and change him. The mother claimed that the school was discriminating. Held: The mother had understated the frequency of the bowel accidents. The school was not properly equipped to deal with them. The school head concluded that it could not sustain the placement out … Continue reading K v The School and the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal: CA 6 Mar 2007

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

London Borough of Camden v Pegg and Others: EAT 13 Apr 2012

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTSWorker, employee or neitherAgency relationshipsC was supplied by R2 (an employment agency) through R3 (another employment agency) to R1 (a local authority) for whom she worked as a Senior School Travel Planning Officer, fully integrated in R1’s organisation. C’s contract with R2 was described as a contract for services; it did not require … Continue reading London Borough of Camden v Pegg and Others: EAT 13 Apr 2012

Cordell v Foreign and Commonwealth Office: EAT 5 Oct 2011

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable Adjustments Appellant, who is deaf, employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office – FCO declines to post her to Kazakhstan because of the problems, and in particular the cost (about andpound;230,000 p.a.), of providing English-speaking lipspeaker support – Brings claims of direct discrimination under section 3A (5) of the Disability … Continue reading Cordell v Foreign and Commonwealth Office: EAT 5 Oct 2011

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

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

Buxton v Equinox Design Ltd: EAT 19 Nov 1998

Where a tribunal had found unfair dismissal and was considering an award of damages for injury to feelings under the Disability Discrimination Act, it had to recognise the different needs of unlimited awards, and take great care in assessing factual materials.Morison J said: ‘What one might describe as the relatively brief and informal hearing on … Continue reading Buxton v Equinox Design Ltd: EAT 19 Nov 1998

X School v SP and Another: Admn 3 Mar 2008

The school appealed against a finding that it had discriminated against N, a pupil with ADHD in effecting certain fixed term exclusions on a number of occasions. Judges: Michael Supperstone QC Citations: [2008] EWHC 389 (Admin), [2008] ELR 243 Links: Bailii Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Education, Discrimination Updated: 07 August … Continue reading X School v SP and Another: Admn 3 Mar 2008

Duke v GEC Reliance Systems Limited: HL 2 Jan 1988

The court was asked about the differential in retirement ages between men and women in private sector employment, and whether it constituted sex discrimination. Held: Section 2(4) of the 1972 Act did not allow a British Court to distort the meaning of a British Statute in order to enforce a Community Directive which does not … Continue reading Duke v GEC Reliance Systems Limited: HL 2 Jan 1988

Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones: CA 18 Jul 2007

The employer appealed an order extending the time for the claimant to claim disability discrimination. The claimant had been suspended pending disciplinary proceedings, but became subject to severe depression, and his doctors said he was unfit to face a hearing. An adjourned hearing went ahead in his absence, and he was dismissed in January 2005. … Continue reading Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones: CA 18 Jul 2007

Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: EAT 25 May 2001

EAT Disability Discrimination – DisabilityLangstaff QC R said: ‘The question whether the impact of the impairment is upon normal day-to-day activities is, of course, judged by asking whether or not any of the abilities, capacities, or capabilities (whichever expression is adopted) referred to in Paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule to the 1995 Act has been … Continue reading Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: EAT 25 May 2001

London Clubs Management Ltd v Hood: EAT 18 Sep 2001

The employee developed a series of headaches. He was off work for many weeks, and the company cut his sick pay. He claimed disability discrimination. The company claimed he was not being paid because he was not at work, the company having exercised its discretion to stop payment of sick pay generally. The correct question … Continue reading London Clubs Management Ltd v Hood: EAT 18 Sep 2001

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

Morgan v Staffordshire University: EAT 11 Dec 2001

The EAT gave guidance on the approach to be adopted in cases where a mental impairment is alleged by a complainant. After referring to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act: ‘Accordingly, in general there will be three or possibly four routes to establishing the existence of ‘mental impairment’ within the [1995 Act], namely: … Continue reading Morgan v Staffordshire University: EAT 11 Dec 2001

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

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

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

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

Conoco Ltd v Kevan Booth: EAT 30 Jan 2001

EAT The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dsmissal and unlawful disability discrimination. He claimant suffered post traumatic stress after a fire at the appellant’s premises, and the employer was advised to remove him from safety critical positions. They made attempts to find alternate work, but the claimant said the attempts were inadequate, and … Continue reading Conoco Ltd v Kevan Booth: EAT 30 Jan 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

O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School: EAT 7 Jun 1996

The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer. Judges: Mummery P Citations: Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Times 07-Jun-1996, [1996] IRLR 372, [1996] … Continue reading O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School: EAT 7 Jun 1996

Goodwin v Patent Office: EAT 21 Oct 1998

An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of guidance resolves this ambiguity in favour of the latter alternative. The employment … Continue reading Goodwin v Patent Office: EAT 21 Oct 1998

British Midland Airways Limited v Lewis: EAT 1978

An airline pilot complained that he had been unfairly dismissed and the Industrial Tribunal, without considering whether or not they had jurisdiction to hear the complaint on the ground that the employee might ordinarily work abroad, found that the dismissal was unfair. The case had been listed before the Industrial Tribunal upon the jurisdictional question … Continue reading British Midland Airways Limited v Lewis: EAT 1978

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

D H Kirton v Tetrosyl Limited: CA 10 Apr 2003

The claimant suffered asymptotic prostate cancer, but after a prostatectomy, had suffered urinary incontinence. He appealed a finding of the tribunal and EAT that his condition was not a disability within the Act. Held: The Schedule enlarged upon the definition of disability to give statutory protection to those with progressive conditions. The urinary incontinece was … Continue reading D H Kirton v Tetrosyl Limited: CA 10 Apr 2003

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

Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1): ECJ 5 Oct 2004

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Lorrach – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of ‘road transport’ – Maximum weekly working … Continue reading Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1): ECJ 5 Oct 2004

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

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

SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (Northern Ireland): HL 1 Jul 2009

The claimant suffered a condition which would lead to the development of vocal nodules unless she followed a program which would allow her to avoid raising her voice. She said that employer should not have placed her within a noisy environment. The employer appealed against a decision that she suffered a disability saying that she … Continue reading SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (Northern Ireland): HL 1 Jul 2009

X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure): EAT 9 Aug 2018

Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal An Employment Judge struck out paragraphs of the Claimant’s claim as they depended on an email in respect of which legal advice privilege was claimed. In considering whether privilege could not be claimed as the advice in the email was … Continue reading X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure): EAT 9 Aug 2018

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 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

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

Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd: HL 16 Mar 1989

The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation transferred to the transferee. Held: It is the duty of a UK court to construe a statute, so far as … Continue reading Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd: HL 16 Mar 1989

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

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

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

Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 10 Feb 2009

The appellant was employed as a teacher. He became disabled on losing part of his arm. He had been located at a prison and was unable to manage the heavy doors. He complained that the respondent had not made reasonable adjustments by transferring him to other work. The respondent argued and the EAT agreed that … Continue reading Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 10 Feb 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

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

O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs: CA 30 Mar 2007

The claimant suffered depression, and complained that the respondent’s reduction in her pay after long periods of sickness was discriminatory. She appealed decisions that it was not. She said that a reasonable adjustment would have been to continue her sick pay unreduced. Held: The claim was unrealistic since it did not recognise the effect of … Continue reading O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs: CA 30 Mar 2007

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

Gichura v Home Office and Another: CA 20 May 2008

The claimant sought damages after his treatment as a disabled person whilst held in immigration detention centres. The court dismissed his claim on the basis of Amin. Held: The application of the Amin case was too simplistic. The various services provided at the detention centre were only to some extent purely governmental. A disabled person … Continue reading Gichura v Home Office and Another: CA 20 May 2008

Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003

EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring DiscriminationThe claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay … Continue reading Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003

Smith v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: EAT 24 Apr 2007

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustmentsWhere a Claimant submits a grievance relating to a continuing discriminatory act, s32 Employment Act 2002, and Schedule 2 para 6 do not require him to serve a further grievance in respect of the same continuing act. The Employment Tribunal was also in error in failing to hold that the … Continue reading Smith v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: EAT 24 Apr 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

Grimley v Turner and Jarvis Co Ltd: EAT 26 Mar 2004

EAT Disability Discrimination: meaning of disability The combination of Section 1 of, and Schedule 1 paragraph 8 to, of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 means that if the Appellant has a progressive condition, and has an insubstantial impairment for 12 months, and a further substantial impairment, he is not required to prove the latter is … Continue reading Grimley v Turner and Jarvis Co Ltd: EAT 26 Mar 2004

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

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

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

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 27 Feb 2003

The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination. Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It had asked first whether there had been less favourable treatment, and then asked why there had … Continue reading Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 27 Feb 2003

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