Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: CA 15 Jul 2004

The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade organisation.
Held: In the light of the rights and duties of the pupil within the organisation, a pupil was not a member of a chambers in any sense to give rise to a duty under the Act. (Laddies dissenting) The fact that he was not a full member did not mean that he was not a member within the Act.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Laddie, The Hon Mr Justice Laddie Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
[2003] EWCA Civ 941, Times 21-Jul-2004, [2005] ICR 292, [2004] 3 All ER 852
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 13
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from1 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 . .

Cited by:
Appealed to1 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2021; Ref: scu.198838