header-logo header-logo

04 September 2008 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7335 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Blame it on the dog

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

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