Image from Google Jackets

Richmond Court (Swansea) Ltd v Williams

Language: English Series: Commercial Leases ; 21(1) January 2007, 1180-1182(3)Subject(s): Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 1719, 14 December 2006. A landlord appealed against a decision which found in favour of a disabled woman who had asked the appellant landlord for permission to install a stairlift in the commonly used parts of her building and been refused. The judge in the original case had reasoned that the refusal to permit a stairlift was a positive act, not an omission and also that a decision to refuse permission would have no detrimental effect on a lessee without Mrs Williams's disability because he or she would be able to obtain access to and egress from his or her flat without any difficulty. He thus found in favour of Mrs Williams. "Held": The appeal court held that the underlying complaint in the case was that Richmond had failed to put Mrs Williams in a better position than she was entitled by her lease. It was deemed critical that managers of premises are not under any positive obligation to make adjustments or to agree to tenants making adjustments to the common parts of premises so as to make them more suitable for disabled people. To come to any other conclusion would have the effect of imposing a positive duty on persons managing premises and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 imposes no such duty. The appeal was allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article L136474 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 136474-1001

[2006] EWCA Civ 1719, 14 December 2006. A landlord appealed against a decision which found in favour of a disabled woman who had asked the appellant landlord for permission to install a stairlift in the commonly used parts of her building and been refused. The judge in the original case had reasoned that the refusal to permit a stairlift was a positive act, not an omission and also that a decision to refuse permission would have no detrimental effect on a lessee without Mrs Williams's disability because he or she would be able to obtain access to and egress from his or her flat without any difficulty. He thus found in favour of Mrs Williams. "Held": The appeal court held that the underlying complaint in the case was that Richmond had failed to put Mrs Williams in a better position than she was entitled by her lease. It was deemed critical that managers of premises are not under any positive obligation to make adjustments or to agree to tenants making adjustments to the common parts of premises so as to make them more suitable for disabled people. To come to any other conclusion would have the effect of imposing a positive duty on persons managing premises and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 imposes no such duty. The appeal was allowed.