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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll