Nightingale & Anor v Bromford Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWHC 136 (KB) (31 January 2024)

Nightingale & Anor v Bromford Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWHC 136 (KB) (31 January 2024)

The judge below erred in law by failing to recognise that Calum's disability-related behaviour significantly influenced Bromford's decision to seek possession, thereby making out discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The judge further erred by not conducting the proportionality assessment on the factual position as at the date of trial, specifically failing to consider the absence of anti-social behaviour in the two years preceding trial. The possession order must be set aside and the proportionality defence reconsidered on up-to-date evidence.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 136 (KB)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Mr Kevin Nightingale; Appellant / Defendant: Mrs Caroline Nightingale; Respondent / Claimant: Bromford Housing Association Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Possession Order
Outcome
Possession order set aside; matter remitted for rehearing on proportionality defence.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Disability Discrimination, Proportionality Assessment, Section 15 Equality Act 2010, Section 21 Housing Act 1988
Housing Law Equality and Discrimination Law Possession Proceedings Disability Discrimination Proportionality Assessment Section 15 Equality Act 2010 Section 21 Housing Act 1988

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Kevin Nightingale

Appellant / Defendant

Mrs Caroline Nightingale

Appellant / Defendant

Bromford Housing Association Limited

Respondent / Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the possession order was unlawfully discriminatory under section 15 Equality Act 2010 due to disability-related conduct
  2. 2 Whether the judge misapplied causation and proportionality tests under the Equality Act
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality assessment was conducted on the correct factual basis at the date of trial

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below erred in law by failing to recognise that Calum's disability-related behaviour significantly influenced Bromford's decision to seek possession, thereby making out discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The judge further erred by not conducting the proportionality assessment on the factual position as at the date of trial, specifically failing to consider the absence of anti-social behaviour in the two years preceding trial. The possession order must be set aside and the proportionality defence reconsidered on up-to-date evidence.

Court Disposition

Possession order set aside; matter remitted for rehearing on proportionality defence.

Orders

  • Possession order set aside.
  • Case remitted to county court for further hearing on proportionality defence based on up-to-date evidence.