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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll