header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 July 2009
Issue: 7377 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Beating the clock

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Spencer Keen looks at time limits in reasonable adjustments cases under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995

In Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [2009] All ER (D) 291 (Jan) the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that will have a significant impact on when time starts to run in reasonable adjustments cases. 

In Matuszowicz the Court of Appeal considered how time limits in reasonable adjustments cases are affected by the provisions of para 3 of Sch 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). This section provides that a deliberate omission is deemed to occur  when it is decided upon.

Significantly, a person is taken to have decided upon that omission either (i) when he does an act inconsistent with the doing of the omitted act or (ii) after that period of time within which a reasonable person would have acted. This means that, in many circumstances, DDA 1995 will treat as deliberate, omissions which could not properly be described as being deliberate. This is particularly relevant to the duty to make

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
NLJ this week: Diamond rings and broken promises

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: The battle over medical report fees intensifies
Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll