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

Disability v possession

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

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS

Read All

APIL sees off ‘substantial prejudice’ defence

Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped

‘Lost years’ precedent overturned

Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment

NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants

Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes

NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing

NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk

The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans

Error message

Disability v possession

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes