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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll