Category: Equality Act 2010

Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Court of Appeal, Sir Keith Lindblom, Holroyde and Coulson LJJ, [2022] EWCA Civ 1391, 31 October 2022

The claimant/ appellant successfully appealed the refusal of her application to quash a decision dismissing her appeal against a refusal of her application for planning permission for a permanent site for Gypsies and Travellers. The definition of “Gypsies and Travellers”, set out in the policy document “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites” (“PPTS 2015”) had been amended in 2015 to remove the express inclusion within the category of “Gypsies and Travellers” of those who permanently ceased to travel as a result of, inter alia, disability or old age. The effect of the exclusion was that the claimant was not regarded for planning purposes as a Traveller. Continue reading →

R (JJ) v Spectrum Community Health CIC

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on R (JJ) v Spectrum Community Health CIC

King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, HHJ Sephton KC [2022] EWHC 2440 (Admin), 30 September 2022

This was an unusual case in which the claimant, a prisoner who was paralysed from the neck down, without any teeth and unable to chew, sought to challenge restrictions imposed by the defendant on his diet. The defendant, which was responsible for feeding the claimant, sought to refuse him access to solid foods because of a high risk of choking. The unsuccessful challenge was brought on a number of grounds including under the EqA. Continue reading →

Cowie & Ors v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on Cowie & Ors v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

EAT, Eady J , Mr D G Smith and Mr S J W Torrance, [2022] EAT 121, 11 August 2022

The defendant fire service was sued by two groups of employees, the first disabled workers who had shielded during Covid and the second women who had faced disruption to childcare arrangements during Covid. The defendant permitted staff to accrue time off in lieu (TOIL) through working overtime and operated a special leave policy which permitted staff who had exhausted TOIL entitlements to request time off to deal with emergencies and unforeseen needs. Continue reading →

Cifci v Crown Prosecution Service

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on Cifci v Crown Prosecution Service

Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court), Nicola Davies LJ and Jay J, [2022] EWHC 1676 (Admin), 1 July 2022

This was an appeal by way of case stated from the Magistrates’ Court from a conviction of wilfully obstructing or seeking to frustrate a search or examination contrary to Schedule 7 para 18(1)(c) of to the Terrorism Act 2000.  The Divisional Court ruled that the conviction could not stand if the decision to search or examine breached the EqA. The Court further ruled that, if there was evidence of unlawful discrimination, it would be for the Crown to satisfy the court that there was no unlawful discrimination.

Continue reading →

Mackereth v Department for Work and Pensions & Anor

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on Mackereth v Department for Work and Pensions & Anor

EAT, Eady J, Mr D Bleiman and Mr D G Smith, [2022] EAT 99, 29 June 2022

The claimant, a doctor and former full-time evangelist, was engaged as a health and disabilities assessor (DAD) by the second defendant which provided services for the DWP. The role involved assessing individuals who applied for disability-related benefits, including in face-to-face interviews. Whereas the DWP’s policy was to refer to transgender people by their preferred names and titles, the claimant promptly objected to speaking to or about people other than in terms consist with their sex registered at birth. He was dismissed after a month and complained that he had been subject to harassment, direct and indirect discrimination because of his religious and/or philosophical beliefs. Continue reading →

R (Hough) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on R (Hough) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, Planning Court, Lieven J, [2022] EWHC 1635 (Admin), 24 June 2022

The Court ruled that the PSED had not been complied with by Lord Greenhalgh, the relevant Minister, when he granted permission in August 2021 for the use of Napier Barracks in Kent as accommodation for asylum seekers until March 2025. While the minister had recorded his having taken into account an Equality Impact Assessment (‘EqIA’) drawn up on 20 September 2020 and updated on 15 July 2021, that EIA had been based on the premise that the use of the barracks would continue only until 21 September 2021. Continue reading →

R (SPM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Women for Refugee Women) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on R (SPM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Women for Refugee Women) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, Lang J, [2022] EWHC 2007 (Admin), 28 July 2022

This case concerned a challenge to the arrangements for providing access to publicly funded legal services for detainees at the women’s immigration removal centre (IRC) of Derwentside, County Durham. The IRC is located some distance from any airport of major city and, as a result of difficulties in securing solicitors to cover the publicly funded Detained Duty Advice Scheme (DDAS), interim arrangements had been put in place under which detainees at Derwentside were not entitled to in-person visits under the DDAS between December 2021 and July 2022. By contrast, detainees held in male IRCs were entitled to face-to-face DDAS visits during this period. Continue reading →

R (Efthimiou) v Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on R (Efthimiou) v Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, Cotter J, [2022] EWHC 1588 (Admin), 23 June 2022

This was a challenge brought under the EqA and the HRA to increases in the charges for use of Hampstead’s Ladies’ Pond. The claim was that the increased charges breached the defendant’s duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons under ss20, 21 & 29 EqA and indirect discrimination against disabled people contrary to s19 EqA and Article 14 ECHR read with Article 8 and/or Article 1 Protocol 1. Continue reading →

R (CN) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on R (CN) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Court of Appeal: Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, King and Dingemans LJJ, [2022] EWCA Civ 86, 4 February 2022

The claimant sought to challenge the exclusion from an infected blood compensation scheme of people who contracted hepatitis B (HBV). He had contracted HBV from unscreened blood in 1989 but HBV was excluded from the scheme because blood donors had been screened for HBV since 1972. The claimant sought to rely on Articles 8 and 14 and A1P1 ECHR and on s15 EqA (disability discrimination). His claim failed and the Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2021] UKSC 26,  (see previous post) and ruling that any differential treatment of similarly situated individuals was justifiable given the intensity of review appropriate to judgments of social and economic policy notwithstanding the fact that disability discrimination was alleged. Continue reading →

R (Good Law Project Ltd & Anor) v Prime Minister & Anor

Posted on | by Aileen McColgan KC | Leave a Comment on R (Good Law Project Ltd & Anor) v Prime Minister & Anor

Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court): Singh LJ and Swift J, [2022] EWHC 298 (Admin),15 February 2022

This decision is most interesting for its approach to standing, in particular that the Good Law Project’s roving approach to JR challenges did not provide it with standing for such challenges. The Court also rejected the claim of the Runnymeade Trust, which it accepted did have standing on a PSED challenge, to standing to challenge as indirectly discriminatory  the many informal appointments to positions of responsibility which characterised the approach of the UK Government’s approach under the pandemic. Such claims were in the Divisional Court’s view properly brought by individual litigants who sought to challenge their own exclusion from consideration rather than by either claimant, and were not the proper subject of judicial review. Having decided that the Runnymede Trust did have standing to challenge the defendant’s compliance with the PSED the court  concluded that the duty had been breached in relation to two of the appointments. Continue reading →