Legal cases

The EHRC has significant powers to become involved in legal cases that are within the areas of Equality and Human Rights.  These powers are set out fully in the Equality Act 2006

Examples of these legal cases are given below.

May 2015

Howe v JD Wetherspoon

The High Court found that the J D Wetherspoons pub chain discriminated against travellers.  A group who had been attending the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain annual conference, some of whom are Irish Travellers, were refused entry into a public house.

Legal judgement Howe v JD Wetherspoon

March 2015

Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities (EHRC intervener)

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to hold that, in relation to a claim for possession of residential premises, a court should take the same approach to a defence raising an argument of unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 Act as to a defence based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The outcome maintains the distinction in the burden of proof that applies to the respective defences.

Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities [2015] UKSC 15

See related article: Eviction actions: the importance of considering discrimination

February 2015

Mr and Mrs Chandhok v Ms P Tirkey (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

In this case, the Claimant supplemented her claim of direct race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 by arguing that her caste was a factor in the way she was perceived by the Respondents.

October 2014

R (J) v Worcestershire County Council (EHRC intervener)

This is an important judgment confirming the powers given to local authorities to assist children in need inside and outside of their areas. The decision will help to ensure that assessments by local authorities of children’s needs for services take account of cultural factors affecting Gypsies and Travellers. The case has the potential to assist the many children in need who move between areas for whatever reason – not just children from Gypsy and Traveller communities.

R (J) v Worcestershire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1518

July 2014

R (Winder and ors) v Sandwell Borough Council (EHRC intervener)

The local authority’s two-year residency requirement for council tax reduction unlawfully indirectly discriminates against women fleeing domestic violence. The Council was in breach of the public sector equality duty.

R (Winder and ors) v Sandwell Borough Council [2014] EWHC 2617 (Admin)

June 2014

R (Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Secretary of State for Health (EHRC intervener)

Whilst in hospital. Mrs Tracey had a Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notice placed on her notes without her knowledge. The failure to consult Mrs Tracey had breached her human rights. The outcome means that health workers should involve patients in any decision about use of DNACPR notices. There should be convincing reasons if this does not happen and causing distress is not a sufficient reason. The rights of patients to be consulted should be set out in a clear and accessible policy. This should be directed at patients and copies automatically made available to them and their families. 

R (Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWCA Civ 822

R (T) v Secretary of State for Home Department and anor (EHRC intervener)

This case concerned whether a man who wants to be a teacher has to continue to disclose to educators and prospective employers the fact that when he was 11 he was warned by the police in connection with the theft of two bicycles. The Court held that the requirement to disclose all matters recorded on the Police National Computer -  without any filter as to relevance or any other factor - went further than was necessary to accomplish the statutory objective (to enable assessment of suitability for admission to certain occupations or to hold certain types of employment, licenses or permits). It failed to strike a fair balance between T’s rights and the interests of the community. The current legislative scheme was not compatible with T’s rights under Art 8.

R (T) v Secretary of State for Home Department and anor [2014] UKSC 35

March 2014

Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd

Mrs Stott was prevented from sitting beside her disabled husband to attend to his needs during a flight. She had to attend to his catheter crouching in the aisle, which caused distress and humiliation. The Supreme Court held reluctantly that compensation for the injury to feelings that occurred in-flight was precluded by the Montreal Convention. However, Lady Hale described the treatment and lack of remedy as ‘disgraceful’.

The Court considered that the Convention should be amended to take account of modern equality laws, and that it is for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to consider other methods of enforcement.  It declined to make a reference to the CJEU stating that the law is clear, but in need of amendment.

Stott v Thomas Cook Tourperators Ltd [2014] UKSC 15

P and Q v Surrey County Council and P v Cheshire West and Chester Council (EHRC intervener)

P, Q and P have learning disabilities and lack capacity to make decisions about their care and where they live. The case clarified that disabled people cannot be deprived of their liberty in their care placements without proper safeguards, even if their living arrangements are benevolent. As a result, disabled people in vulnerable situations – like P,Q and P - are entitled to regular independent checks, in accordance with Art 5, to ensure the restrictions are in their best interests.

P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Cheshire Council and anor; P and Q (by their litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19

February 2014

Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd and anor

Mr Jessemey had been given a poor reference by a former employer after lodging a claim for age discrimination. The Court of Appeal clarified that post employment victimisation is prohibited by the Equality Act. Mr Jessemey’s appeal was allowed and his victimisation claim was successful. Further, the decision will mean that all post relationship victimisation will be prohibited, whatever field it arises in (eg education, services, employment etc)

Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd and anor [2014] EWCA Civ 185

Last Updated: 17 Nov 2015