header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 September 2008 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7335 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Blame it on the dog

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

How has Malcolm redefined the test for disability related discrimination? Spencer Keen reports

In the recent case of London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43 the House of Lords has radically changed the long established approach to disability-related discrimination under s 24(1) Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) by overruling the long standing case of Clark v Novacold [1999] IRLR 318, [1999] 2 All ER 977. Although this was a housing decision it has important ramifications for employment law since DDA 1995, s 3A (1) (reason related to discrimination against employees) is identical to s 24(1).

The facts of Clark v Novacold and Malcolm

In Clark v Novacold Mr Clark was employed as a process operator by Novacold. After an injury at work he commenced sick leave. The company obtained medical reports which anticipated an improvement over 12 months but the medical opinions were unable to give an exact time for his return to work. Mr Clark was dismissed in January 1997. The reason given for the dismissal was that

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll