Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham (Appellants) v Malcolm (Respondent)
Case
•
[2008] UKHL 43
•25 June 2008
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham (Appellants) v Malcolm (Respondent) [2008] UKHL 43
[2008] UKHL 43
25 June 2008
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellants, Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham (Lewisham), sought to evict Mr Malcolm from his flat, claiming that he had breached the terms of his tenancy agreement by subletting the flat to another party. Mr Malcolm defended the claim, arguing that Lewisham's actions amounted to unlawful discrimination under sections 22 and 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). The appeal before the House of Lords was from the decision of the Court of Appeal, which allowed Mr Malcolm's appeal against the original County Court judgment in favour of Lewisham. The central issue was whether Mr Malcolm's mental illness, which constituted a disability, had a causal link to his subletting of the flat and whether Lewisham's actions constituted unlawful discrimination under the DDA. The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary unanimously allowed the appeal, finding that Lewisham's actions did not amount to unlawful discrimination under the DDA. The court determined that Mr Malcolm was not disabled within the meaning of the DDA at the time of the subletting, as his illness did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. However, even assuming Mr Malcolm was disabled, the court found that Lewisham's reason for seeking possession was not related to his disability. The court further held that even if the reason had related to Mr Malcolm's disability, he was not treated less favourably than others to whom that reason did not apply. The court concluded that the treatment of Mr Malcolm was in line with Lewisham's housing management policy, which applied equally to all tenants who sublet their flats. The court's decision was based on a narrow interpretation of the comparator test under section 24(1)(a) of the DDA, which required comparing the treatment of a disabled person with the treatment of a non-disabled person in the same position. This interpretation limited the reach of the DDA in the context of housing management. The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary reinstated the original County Court order, requiring Mr Malcolm to deliver up possession of the flat to Lewisham.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Housing Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Unjustified Less Favourable Treatment
-
Causation
-
Discrimination
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Estate of Ruru v Attorney-General [2025] NZCA 597
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Estate of Ruru v Attorney-General
[2025] NZCA 597
Winther v Housing New Zealand Corporation
[2010] NZCA 601
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0