LB Lewisham v Malcolm and another [electronic resource]
LB Lewisham v Malcolm and another [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] EWCA Civ 763, 25 July 2007. Considers whether the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 could be used to prevent landlords seeking possession of a premises when a tenant had breached the conditions of his tenancy. The appellant tenant (M) appealed against a possession order. M was a secure tenant of the respondent local authority (L) with the right to buy his flat. He had sublet his flat without obtaining L's permission and therefore lost his secure status and with it the right to buy. L then commenced possession proceedings. It came to light that M had been suffering from schizophrenia. M argued that his illness had caused him to act irrationally and that possession on the basis of his diagnosis would be unlawful. "Held": M's mental impairment did have a substantial bearing on the case. L's possession order was related to this impairment. M did not have to establish that his illness was the cause of the subletting, as the causal relationship did exist. The obtaining of a possession order or serving of notice to quit would therefore amount to unlawful discrimination on grounds of disability. The loss of security did not provide an exception. Appeal allowed.
LB LEWISHAM V MALCOLM AND ANOTHER
RICHMOND COURT (SWANSEA) LTD V WILLIAMS
CLARK V T D G LTD
MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL V ROMANO
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995 S22
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 2005
HOUSING ACT 1985 S93
England and Wales--1543-
[2007] EWCA Civ 763, 25 July 2007. Considers whether the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 could be used to prevent landlords seeking possession of a premises when a tenant had breached the conditions of his tenancy. The appellant tenant (M) appealed against a possession order. M was a secure tenant of the respondent local authority (L) with the right to buy his flat. He had sublet his flat without obtaining L's permission and therefore lost his secure status and with it the right to buy. L then commenced possession proceedings. It came to light that M had been suffering from schizophrenia. M argued that his illness had caused him to act irrationally and that possession on the basis of his diagnosis would be unlawful. "Held": M's mental impairment did have a substantial bearing on the case. L's possession order was related to this impairment. M did not have to establish that his illness was the cause of the subletting, as the causal relationship did exist. The obtaining of a possession order or serving of notice to quit would therefore amount to unlawful discrimination on grounds of disability. The loss of security did not provide an exception. Appeal allowed.
LB LEWISHAM V MALCOLM AND ANOTHER
RICHMOND COURT (SWANSEA) LTD V WILLIAMS
CLARK V T D G LTD
MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL V ROMANO
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995 S22
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 2005
HOUSING ACT 1985 S93
England and Wales--1543-