header-logo header-logo

05 January 2018 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7775 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Better together?

nlj_7775_piggott

Charles Pigott talks gender segregation & discrimination, & considers what we can learn from the Al-Hijrah school case

  • The Court of Appeal has ruled that gender segregation at a single site mixed school was direct sex discrimination.
  • However the majority stopped short of holding that such segregation was inherently discriminatory against women and girls.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School and others [2017] EWCA Civ 1426 identifies head on some difficult issues of discrimination law arising from the segregation of school pupils on religious grounds.

Al-Hijrah school is a voluntary aided faith school for boys and girls aged from four to 16. Although operating on a single site, it has followed the practice of educating boys and girls separately from Year Five onwards. The question before the Court of Appeal was whether this practice amounted to direct discrimination on grounds of sex.

History of the litigation

The story starts with an Ofsted inspection report

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll