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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
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
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
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’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll