header-logo header-logo

Disability v possession

18 September 2008 / Nat Duckworth , Adam Rosenthal
Issue: 7337 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Does Malcolm set the bar too high in disability discrimination disputes? Ask Adam Rosenthal and Nat Duckworth

Section 22(3)(c) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) provides that it is unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person by evicting him or subjecting him to any other detriment. A person discriminates if “for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply” and that treatment is not “justified” within the limited meaning of DDA 1995, s 24. But how in practice will this affect landlords when seeking to obtain possession of premises occupied by a disabled person? The recent decision of the House of Lords in Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] All ER (D) 342 (Jun) has provided some useful guidance in this difficult area.

Unlawful sub-letting

In Malcom a local authority brought possession proceedings against a tenant, who unbeknown to it had been

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: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dispute resolution team welcomes associate in London

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Special education needs and mental capacity expert joins as partner

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll