The claimant said that the airline and airport had failed to provide proper access arrangements for him as a disabled person. No wheelchair had been provided to transfer him through the airport to the airplane.
Held: It was the duty of both defendants to provide such facilities. It was no defence that better facilities were provided for more seriously disabled travellers, and the claimants financial ability to provide his own services was equally irrelevant. Both defendants were 100% liable, and the damages were to be paid equally.
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Justice Jonathan Parker And Lord Justice Keene
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1751, Times 11-Jan-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 1349
Links:
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Roads v Central Trains Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The court considered the meaning of the ‘duty to provide a reasonable alternative method’.
Held: The policy of the 1995 Act was to provide access to a service as close as it was reasonable possible to get to the standard offered to the public . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Transport
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220527
