header-logo header-logo

18 September 2008 / Nat Duckworth , Adam Rosenthal
Issue: 7337 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Disability v possession

Does Malcolm set the bar too high in disability discrimination disputes? Ask Adam Rosenthal and Nat Duckworth

Section 22(3)(c) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) provides that it is unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person by evicting him or subjecting him to any other detriment. A person discriminates if “for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply” and that treatment is not “justified” within the limited meaning of DDA 1995, s 24. But how in practice will this affect landlords when seeking to obtain possession of premises occupied by a disabled person? The recent decision of the House of Lords in Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] All ER (D) 342 (Jun) has provided some useful guidance in this difficult area.

Unlawful sub-letting

In Malcom a local authority brought possession proceedings against a tenant, who unbeknown to it had been

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll