![CA-2024-002348 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1390](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
THE ISSUES
THE ISSUES
In the light of that background, and the appellant’s and respondent’s notices, and the applications made, the following issues arise and it is convenient to deal with them in this order:
is the claim now academic as the appellant has been offered a private sector tenancy?
was the Judge correct to conclude that there was no breach of section 19 of the 2010 Act, having regard to the provisions of section 136 of the 2010 Act?
was (a) the Judge entitled to refuse to admit the evidence of the All-Party Parliamentary Group, Shelter and the respondent’s response to the freedom of information request and (b) should this Court grant permission to adduce the new evidence in the form of the statements to the BBC as reported in its news article and the Ombudsman’s report?
was the Judge correct to conclude that there was no breach of section 20 of the 2010 Act and the duty to make reasonable adjustments?
was the Judge (a) wrong to find a breach of section 149 of the 2010 Act and (b) if not, was she entitled to refuse a remedy?
- 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