header-logo header-logo

12 June 2008
Issue: 7325 / Categories: Case law , Local government , Discrimination , Law digest
printer mail-detail

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Gichura v Home Office [2008] All ER (D) 257 (May)

The claimant was a wheelchair user. He was placed in immigration detention. He complained that there had been a failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to his disability.

HELD Some functions are plainly government-like, such as the administrative handling of a detainee upon arrival, and so are out with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995). However, the fact a service is incidental to detention is not enough to exclude that service from the ambit of DDA 1995 if, when performed by an ordinary person, it would be the provision of a service within the meaning of DDA 1995, s 19.

A public duty and a service can be performed at the same time. There is distinction between acts that might be done by a private person, and acts that a private person would never do, with only the latter being government functions. It is inconceivable that Parliament did not intend DDA 1995 to apply in circumstances such as detention in a detention centre, police custody or prison.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
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
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?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
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
back-to-top-scroll