header-logo header-logo

01 January 2009 / Ulele Burnham
Issue: 7350+7351 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Human rights , Employment
printer mail-detail

Promoting equality

Ulele Burnham examines how courts interpret positive equality obligations in public law

In R (Kaur and Shah) v LB Ealing [2008] EWHC 2062 (Admin) Judicial Review proceedings were brought by two clients of Southall Black Sisters (SBS), a well-established specialist service directed at providing support and assistance for victims of domestic violence from predominantly black and asian minority communities, against Ealing Borough Council (Ealing).

Funding
The Ealing decision subject to challenge was a decision to withdraw funding from SBS on the grounds that SBS’s focus on black and minority women was at odds with its perceived obligation to sponsor a borough wide service for all irrespective of race. Ealing relied in particular on the notion that a borough wide service which did not target or cater to specific sectors/groups was an important building block
in community “cohesion”. The claimants complained that Ealing had failed, in breach of its race equality duty contained in s 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA 1976), to conduct a proper race equality impact assessment before deciding to

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

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