header-logo header-logo

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

Disability v possession

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 diagnosed with schizophrenia, on the basis of an unlawful sub-letting.

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll