header-logo header-logo

04 September 2008 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7335 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Blame it on the dog

How has Malcolm redefined the test for disability related discrimination? Spencer Keen reports

In the recent case of London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43 the House of Lords has radically changed the long established approach to disability-related discrimination under s 24(1) Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA 1995) by overruling the long standing case of Clark v Novacold [1999] IRLR 318, [1999] 2 All ER 977. Although this was a housing decision it has important ramifications for employment law since DDA 1995, s 3A (1) (reason related to discrimination against employees) is identical to s 24(1).

The facts of Clark v Novacold and Malcolm

In Clark v Novacold Mr Clark was employed as a process operator by Novacold. After an injury at work he commenced sick leave. The company obtained medical reports which anticipated an improvement over 12 months but the medical opinions were unable to give an exact time for his return to work. Mr Clark was dismissed in January 1997. The reason given for the dismissal was that he was unable to work.

In Malcolm the London Borough

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll