header-logo header-logo

25 June 2009 / Emma Williamson
Issue: 7375 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

The trouble with Malcolm

Emma Williamson says disability discrimination cases must be treated on their own merits

In June 2008 a well-established understanding of disability-related discrimination was thrown into disarray by the House of Lords in Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] All ER (D) 342 (Jun). This case made it considerably more difficult for claimants to succeed in disability-related discrimination claims.

The Equality Bill purports to address Malcolm, by replacing disability-related discrimination with provisions regarding (i) indirect discrimination; and (ii) discrimination arising from disability. Concept (i) was considered inappropriate in relation to disability discrimination when the legislation on this was introduced in 1995 (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995)) and revised in 2005 (DDA 2005). It is not clear how previous concerns regarding its suitability in this context have been addressed. Concept (ii) is entirely new. It is not clear how courts will interpret this (and given the somewhat surprising decision in Malcolm, few are likely to place bets).

Perhaps clarifying the original legislation and confirming

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

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