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
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll