header-logo header-logo

11 January 2013
Issue: 7543 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Disability discrimination

R (on the application of Coleman) v Barnet London Borough Council [2012] EWHC 3725 (Admin), [2012] All ER (D) 256 (Dec)

The duty under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 was not a duty to achieve a result, but to have due regard to the need to achieve the statutory goals. The court had to consider whether due regard had been paid to the equality duty and not simply whether the failure to have due regard to that duty was Wednesbury unreasonable. “Due” regard meant the regard that was appropriate in all the circumstances. The circumstances included the importance of the areas of life of the members of the disadvantaged group that were affected by the inequality of opportunity and the extent of the inequality, and such countervailing factors as were relevant to the function which the decision-maker was performing. Where disabilities were concerned, the duty encompassed due regard being given to the need to take steps to gather relevant information in order that the authority could properly take steps to take into account disabled persons’

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll