header-logo header-logo

21 October 2010
Issue: 7438 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Housing

Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104, [2010] All ER (D) 96 (Oct)

The duty in s 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applied to local authorities in carrying out all their functions under Pt VII of the 1996 Act. In making determinations under Pt VII of the Housing Act 1996 in areas in which a person’s disability could be of relevance, a local authority should have due regard to the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities. In circumstances in which a reviewing officer under s 202 of the 1996 Act, or the initial decision maker under s 184 of that Act, was not invited to consider an alleged disability, it would be wrong in the light of s 49A(1) to say that he should consider disability only if it was obvious. On the contrary, he needed to have due regard to the need for him to take steps to take account of it. That did not mean that in every case a decision maker under ss 184 or 202 had to take active steps to enquire into whether the

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