Looks like Nearly is in for no sleep tonight!
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham (Appellants) v Malcolm (Respondent)
Very very briefly as I'm at work and have only read some parts as it's a very lengthy judgement, it appears Lewisham's appeal has been upheld.
Very interesting case I think, having suffered from a disability myself. A lot to read after the footy ;)
Also have to love a case where a Lord (LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE) says
'The problem, I repeat, was the dog'
Am pondering whether McCann (if it had been out) could have helped Macolm as he was back living in the property.
Apologies for the editing. I thought I had some grasp of what constitutes indirect discrimination. Now I realise I have none and look forward to reading some sort of an 'idiots guide to discrimination' :)
Until it's published I shall continue to stare at 35 in the hope that I can make sense of it. Perhaps I will dream of blind people having to leave their dogs outside the pub. What happens if he can't leave it outside the pub because it's really cold and the dog will die of hypothermia? Should the blind person tell the pub owner he's blind and needs his dog and that his dog will die of hypothermia if left outside?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
No detailed report until the weekend, I'm afraid. Actual case work has got in the way - so my evenings have been spent on something more immediately urgent. Still lacking sleep.
It's finally up now.
Post a Comment