Schedule 22 (statutory provisions) has effect.
Cases considering section 191 4
Carly Jayne Willott, R (on the application of) v Eastbourne Borough Council
Confirms that the statutory requirement exemption may apply where a person does something required by an enactment, but cannot protect an allocation scheme which is itself discriminatory. (see para [120])
Hodkin & Ors, R (on the application of) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages
Applied to accept that any discrimination required by the 1855 Act would not contravene the Equality Act. The court accepted the submission that the Registrar General was required to apply the statutory scheme. (see para [96])
IB v Gravesham Borough Council & Anor
Confirms the statutory effect given to Schedule 22. Any discrimination resulting from the alternative construction would have been saved because the treatment was required by an enactment (see paras [58]-[59], [141]-[143]).
1 more judgment, and what each says about section 191, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.
Explanatory note
Amendments and notes
1 notes from legislation.gov.uk
Commencement
- I70S. 191 partly in force; s. 191 not in force at Royal Assent see s. 216; s. 191 in force for certain purposes at 1.10.2010 by S.I. 2010/2317, art. 2(1)(14)(a) (with art. 15)
605.This section gives effect to Schedule 22, which allows differential treatment which would otherwise be made unlawful by specific parts of the Act, where that is required by law. It also allows differential treatment of pregnant women for their own protection, and allows people of particular religions or beliefs to be appointed to specified educational posts. It also allows rules about Crown employment to provide for differential treatment on the basis of nationality.