‘The most vulnerable in society are at risk of being excluded from access to justice due to poor digital skills, lack of legal advice, court closures and “dilapidated” courthouses, MPs have warned in a damning critique of the government’s modernisation programmes.’
The Guardian, 31st October 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In R (ota Z) v LB of Hackney & Agudas Israel Housing Assoc Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1099, the court considered a challenge to the housing policies of a charitable provider of social housing in Hackney. Accommodation was allocated by the Housing Association only to members of the Orthodox Jewish community in the Stamford Hill area of London. The Divisional Court found that ‘there are very high levels of poverty and deprivation [amongst the Orthodox community], with associated low levels of home ownership … there is a strong correlation between the evidenced poverty and deprivation and the religion’. It also found that the arrangements for allocating housing which placed Orthodox Jews in a primary position to enable them both to avoid the disadvantages and to meet the needs. This would be unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 unless there was an appropriate exception.’
Littleton Chambers, 21st October 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘On 30 August 2019, the DIFC’s new Employment Law (“the New Law”) came into force. Though the drafting of the New Law marks, in its detail, a notable departure from both the old law (of 2005) and the draft law, largely similar provisions have been in force for the best part of 15 years. However, as the DIFC Court recognised in Hana Al Herz v DIFC Authority [2014] DIFC CA 004, there was no entitlement to damages for breach of the earlier discrimination provisions. That has been rectified. Practitioners can thus expect close scrutiny of the New Law and the discrimination protections it provides.’
Littleton Chambers, 8th October 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In Gilham v MOJ the Supreme Court considered the novel question whether judges are workers for the purposes of the protection against whistle blowing detriment in the Employment Rights Act 1996.’
Old Square Chambers, 16th October 2019
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Immigrant rights campaigners have begun a ground-breaking legal case to establish how a Home Office algorithm that filters UK visa applications actually works.’
The Guardian, 29th October 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Non-disclosure agreements must not prevent employees bringing discrimination cases against their employer, new guidance from the equalities watchdog says.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th October 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The government has announced controversial plans to force voters to bring photo ID with them to the polling station. The move has drawn criticism from MPs and campaigners who believe it will undermine thousands of people’s right to vote. So what is it and what’s at stake? Jodie Satterly explores.’
Rights Info, 16th October 2019
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘City council asks high court for permanent exclusion zone around Anderton Park primary.’
The Guardian, 14th October 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In a judgment handed down on 3rd October, the High Court has ruled that successive statutes between 1995 and 2014, which legislated to equalise the state pension age between men and women were not discriminatory. The High Court also determined that it was not a matter for the courts to conclude whether the steps taken to inform those affected by the changes in the state pension age for women were inadequate or unreasonable.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th October 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In Dr David Mackereth v The Department for Work and Pensions & Anor [2019] ET 1304602/2018, Dr Mackereth had been recruited by Advanced Personnel Management Group (’APM’) as a Health and Disabilities Assessor (‘HAD’) on behalf of the DWP [3]. He was contracted to assess individuals on behalf of the DWP who were contemplating, undergoing or had undergone gender reassignment. However, as a result of his Christian beliefs he refused, in conscience, to refer to clients using the pronoun of their choice – as the DWP required. It later became apparent the issue also extended to styles and titles of address [8]. He was suspended and, ultimately, sacked [17].’
Law & Religion UK, 6th October 2019
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘Jeremy Ford, a Solicitor-Advocate at Cambridge Family Law Practice, acted pro bono on behalf of the Litigation Friend for the child at the centre of the landmark case of TT v Registrar General of England and Wales and Secretary of State for Health and Social Careheard by the President of the Family Division. The judgment was handed down on 25 September 2019 and has been reported as TT, R (On the Application Of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales[2019] EWHC 2384 (Fam) (25 September 2019).’
Family Law, 7th October 2019
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Women affected by controversial adjustments made to the state pension age, which campaigners say unlawfully discriminates against women born in the 1950s, have lost their landmark High Court battle against the government.’
The Independent, 3rd October 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A doctor who refused to call a transgender woman “she” because of his Christian faith has lost his employment tribunal.’
The Independent, 3rd October 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth, irrespective of gender? This was the ruling of the Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane P, President of the Family Division, on 25th September in TT, R(on the application of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales [2019] EWHC 2384 (Fam) . He decided that the Claimant, (known as “TT”), who was legally recognised as male at the time of giving birth to his child, (“YY”), is correctly registered as “mother” on YY’s birth certificate.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th September 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025