header-logo header-logo

10 December 2014
Issue: 7634 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Wheelchair users on buses only have a right to “reasonable adjustments”

The “first come first served” policy for the disabled bay on buses is not unlawful, the Court of Appeal has held.

Wheelchair user Doug Paulley brought a claim against First Bus Group after a driver refused to force a woman with a sleeping baby in a pushchair to vacate the wheelchair space. The woman said the pushchair did not fold down. The driver followed company policy. 

Paulley argued that he suffered a substantial disadvantage due to First Bus Group’s policy of asking rather than requiring passengers to step aside for wheelchair users.

Delivering judgment in First Group v Paulley [2014] EWCA Civ 1573, Lord Justice Lewison said the case was not about whether non-wheelchair users should make space for a passenger in a wheelchair, nor whether mothers with pushchairs should make way for a wheelchair user. 

“What is at issue is whether the bus company must have a policy to compel all other passengers to vacate the wheelchair space irrespective of the reason why they are in it, on pain of being made to leave the bus if they do not, leaving no discretion to the driver,” he said. 

He concluded that that was “a step too far”, and accepted First Bus Group’s appeal that their policy is not discriminatory or in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

He said that, while wheelchair users have a right to “reasonable adjustments”, it would not be reasonable for drivers to risk battery by forcibly removing passengers, nor could a driver be expected to adjudicate between competing claims and nor could a company be expected to sue a passenger who refused to move. Mothers with a pushchair could be ordered off a bus but their child could not. Mothers often had more than one child with them.

Unity Law, which acted for Paulley, is seeking leave to appeal.

Issue: 7634 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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