A couple cared for children without fee who were referred to them by a local authority. The children they cared for included coloured children. Two individuals sought to prevent the couple caring for coloured children. The question for the House of Lords was whether the attempt by the individuals to prevent the couple so doing was a breach of the Race Relations Act 1968, whether, in caring for the children in their home without fee, the couple were ‘concerned with the provision to. . a section of the public . . goods, facilities or services’.
Held: (Majority – Lord Wilbeforce dissenting) Even though the couple might be seen as providing goods, facilities and services, within their home, the Act would not regard the members of the household itself as a ‘section of the public’. The private household was beyond the reach of the Act. What made their household different, and brought it within the reach of the Act, was the public nature of the service they offered the children. The children were referred to them by a public authority. They might care for as many as fifty children each year. Their Lordships noted that the Act did not lay down a line of separation between the public and private sphere and that the facts of the case made it difficult to tell.
Judges:
Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Salmon
Citations:
[1974] UKHL 3, [1975] AC 259, [1974] 2 All ER 73
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board HL 16-Dec-1971
The council operated a housing policy which required applicants for housing tbe British nationals. Mr Zesko, a Polish national, complained that this was race discrimination.
Held: The House declined to interpret ‘national origins’ in the list . .
Appeal from – Race Relations Board v Applin CA 1973
. .
Cited – Heydon’s Case 1584
Mischief rule of Iinterpretation
Lord Coke stated the basis of the mischief rule of interpretation: ‘For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and . .
Cited by:
Cited – MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248606
