![CA-2024-002348 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1390](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
CONCLUSION
I would dismiss the appeal and uphold the respondent’s notice. The respondent did not breach sections 19, 20 or 149 of the 2010 Act. The Judge was entitled to refuse to admit the evidence that she did. I would refuse to admit the new evidence.
LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE:
I agree.
SIR GEOFFREY VOS, MASTER OF THE ROLLS:
I also agree.
- Heading
- LORD JUSTICE LEWIS
- THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
- The 2010 Act
- THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- The application for housing assistance under Part VII of the 1996 Act
- The allocation of Part VI accommodation
- The award of points and the review decision
- The Emergency and Exceptions Panel decision
- The Judgment
- THE ISSUES
- THE FIRST ISSUE – IS THE APPEAL ACADEMIC?
- THE SECOND AND THIRD ISSUES – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE 2010 ACT AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
- Discussion
- The comparison – is there evidence of disproportionate adverse impact?
- Is there a causal connection between the PCP and the particular disadvantage alleged?
- THE FOURTH ISSUE – THE DUTY TO MAKE REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS
- THE FIFTH ISSUE – SECTION 149 OF THE 2010 ACT
- Submissions
- Discussion
- Conclusions