header-logo header-logo

21 October 2010
Issue: 7438 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Housing

Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104, [2010] All ER (D) 96 (Oct)

The duty in s 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applied to local authorities in carrying out all their functions under Pt VII of the 1996 Act. In making determinations under Pt VII of the Housing Act 1996 in areas in which a person’s disability could be of relevance, a local authority should have due regard to the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities. In circumstances in which a reviewing officer under s 202 of the 1996 Act, or the initial decision maker under s 184 of that Act, was not invited to consider an alleged disability, it would be wrong in the light of s 49A(1) to say that he should consider disability only if it was obvious. On the contrary, he needed to have due regard to the need for him to take steps to take account of it. That did not mean that in every case a decision maker under ss 184 or 202

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll