header-logo header-logo

27 October 2017
Issue: 7767 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Sex discrimination

HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School (Secretary of State for Education and others intervening) [2017] EWCA Civ 1426, [2017] All ER (D) 79 (Oct)

It was direct discrimination, contrary to ss 13 and 85 of the Equality Act 2010 for a mixed-sex school to have a complete segregation of male and female pupils over a certain age for all lessons, breaks, school clubs and trips. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division in so deciding, allowed the appeal of the HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills from a judicial review application.

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

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll