2013 02 Equality

Friday 1 March 2013

Share This Page

Email This Page

R on the application of T v (1) Chief Constable of Great Manchester (2) SSHD (3) Secretary of State for Justice (1) Liberty (2) EHRC (Interveners) [2013] EWCA Civ 25 The Master of the Roles ruled that the disclosure provisions of the Police Act 1997 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 are incompatible with article 8 ECHR because there was a blanket policy of disclosure regardless of seriousness or relevance of offence which went beyond what was necessary to achieve its protective purpose. Click here for transcript.

R (on application of Coleman) v London Borough of Barnet and others [2012] EWHC 3725 The Claimant sought to challenge a decision of the local planning authority to grant planning permission for the development of a school on land on which a garden centre had been located. The garden centre was regularly used by the disabled and elderly and it was argued for the claimant that the nature and volume of objection from the disabled, elderly and those responsible for their care meant that this was one of those cases where due regard duty under s149 of the Equality Act 2010 was very high, but it was acknowledged that no obligation to conduct a formal equality impact assessment arose.

Lindblom J dismissed the application for judicial review noting that the local planning authority had done all that was required under s 149. Crucial to the decision was the local authority’s rigorous fact finding process and analysis of the ‘importance of the areas of life of the members of the disadvantaged group…affected by the inequality of opportunity and the extent of the inequality’ and also the ‘countervailing factors’, namely the benefit to the wider community of the provision of new educational facilities. Click here for transcript.

Abusabib and El-Teraifi v Taddese UKEAT/0424/11/ZT The Employment Appeal Tribunal (Langstaff J presiding) ruled on the extent of diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 and Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 as they apply to domestic servants employed in a diplomatic household. The employee, a domestic servant from Sudan employed by a diplomat of the Sudanese Embassy in London won substantial damages (£70,000) in the Employment Tribunal as result of serious allegations of direct discrimination and harassment, including serious sexual harassment and abuse. The employer appealed and the EAT held that employment by a diplomat of another to provide personal service to him whilst engaged in his mission may attract protection of immunity as being a function of the diplomatic mission. However, the employment of a domestic worker, who performs no task outside the diplomat’s home, has little connection with functions of his mission so that it is unlikely to be an act performed in the exercise of diplomatic functions. The employer’s appeal was dismissed. Click here for transcript.

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards