header-logo header-logo

09 July 2009
Issue: 7377 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Added protection

Discrimination

Employers have a duty under disability discrimination laws toward employees whose health condition “could well happen” in the future, following a landmark House of Lords ruling.

SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle  [2009] UKHL 37 (1 July 2009) concerned a woman with a propensity to develop nodules on her vocal cords, which she managed through a strict regime to conserve her voice. She claimed disability discrimination when her employer moved her to a noisier environment, where she had to raise her voice. Her employers disputed that she was “disabled”.

The Law Lords ruled in her favour. They extended the scope of the term “disability” by interpreting the word “likely” in para 6(1) of Sch 1 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to mean “could well happen”, a wider test than “more likely than not”.

Delivering judgment, Lord Rodger said: “a doctor does not prescribe a continuing course of drug or other treatment only where she considers that there is more than a 50% chance of the condition or symptoms recurring. She does so when she considers that there is a significant risk of that happening—when ‘it could well happen’.”

Susie Uppal, director of legal enforcement at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, said it was important for “people [with] chronic medical conditions, such as epilepsy, rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes” to be recognised as disabled under the law.

Issue: 7377 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll