header-logo header-logo

14 January 2010 / Craig Rose
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

School of thought

The Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15, [2009] All ER (D) 163 (Dec) provides a fine example of the law of unintended consequences.

The Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15, [2009] All ER (D) 163 (Dec) provides a fine example of the law of unintended consequences.

When in 1976 the newly enacted Race Relations Act prohibited, for purposes specified in the Act, discrimination on “racial grounds” (s 1(1)) and provided that such grounds included “ethnic…origins” (s 3(1)), nobody could have imagined that those words would be held, 33 years later, to preclude Jewish schools from applying, in their admission policies, Orthodox Judaism’s age-old test for determining whether a child is Jewish. Yet that is precisely what the majority of the Supreme Court have decided.

The result produces an anomaly, and a discriminatory one at that. Like all other faith schools, Jewish schools remain free to give preference in their admission

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
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
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll