Lalli v Spirita Housing Ltd

For disability discrimination, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is engaged where a current impairment affects a normal day-to-day activity, even if the claimant would have lacked the ability in any event and regardless of the impairment’s cause. A written communication is not discriminatory merely because the recipient cannot read it, particularly where written contact was requested and assistance was available. In public-authority proceedings, the court must consider whether reasonable steps could mitigate a disability-related adverse effect. Here, no material disadvantage or unreasonably adverse experience was shown. The claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and Race Relations Act 1975 therefore failed.

The appellant was an assured tenant of sheltered accommodation operated by the respondent housing association. He had a mental impairment involving cognitive and learning difficulties, and was functionally illiterate. After incidents involving alleged threatening and abusive behaviour, the respondent obtained an interim anti-social behaviour injunction restricting his use of the communal lounge. Following expert evidence and the Official Solicitor’s involvement, the injunction proceedings were abandoned.

The appellant claimed that the respondent had breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by failing to make reasonable adjustments in communicating with him and in commencing and pursuing the injunction proceedings. He also alleged indirect racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1975. The Nottingham County Court dismissed the claims. The appeal concerned whether the respondent’s conduct created a disability-related disadvantage or an unreasonably adverse experience, and whether reasonable adjustments or justification were established.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The county court’s findings that the respondent had been justified in seeking the injunction and that the appellant had access to sources of assistance were sustainable.
2. For the purposes of section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, there must be a causal link between the impairment and the adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. However, the cause of the impairment is irrelevant. The duty to make reasonable adjustments could therefore be engaged because the appellant’s current mental impairment affected his ability to read, even if he would have been unable to read without that impairment. The individual officer’s lack of knowledge was immaterial because the respondent itself knew of the disability.
3. The letter asking the appellant to refrain from using the lounge during social events did not itself create a material disadvantage or unreasonably adverse detriment. He had requested written contact, the letter provided a permanent record, and assistance was available from friends, the Derby Racial Equality Council and solicitors. A letter in Punjabi would not have assisted an illiterate recipient.
4. The service-provider claim failed for three reasons. It was doubtful whether the communal lounge was a service supplied to the public or a section of the public. The relevant policy was the policy of excluding persons who disturbed the peace, not the decision to seek an injunction, and the appellant did not contend that his disability prevented him from complying with that policy. In any event, pursuing the injunction was justified by the respondent’s duty to protect other residents and staff.
5. The alternative claim concerning control of let premises under sections 24A(2) and 24D failed on essentially the same basis. The statutory requirement of a request to change the relevant policy was also not clearly satisfied.
6. The public-authority provisions were residual under section 21B(7)(a). Assuming they applied to the injunction decision, the correct inquiry was whether the disability made the experience of the proceedings worse than it would have been for a person without the disability; whether reasonable steps could remove or mitigate that effect; and, if so, whether failure to take those steps was justified. The appellant produced no evidence of undue stress, anxiety or a particularly onerous experience. The availability of advice and representation was material. The underlying proceedings’ justification did not alone answer the adjustment issue, but the first threshold was not met.
7. Section 49A imposed no standalone cause of action, although it supported the need for reasonable inquiries into the nature and extent of a known disability. Earlier inquiries or representation might have led to the proceedings being abandoned sooner, but their absence did not establish discrimination. The indirect race discrimination claim also failed because sending the letter was a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim and caused no detriment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the appeal: [2012] EWCA Civ 497.
2. Nottingham County Court — dismissed the appellant’s complaints under the Race Relations Act 1975 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.