Kevin Nightingale & Anor v Bromford Housing Association Limited

Kevin Nightingale & Anor v Bromford Housing Association Limited

The judge below erred in law by failing to recognise that Calum's disability and resulting behaviour significantly influenced Bromford's decision to seek possession, thus discrimination under section 15 was made out. The judge further failed to conduct the proportionality assessment based on the factual position at the date of trial, as required, particularly in light of the absence of anti-social behaviour for two years prior to trial. The possession order must therefore be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration on up to date evidence.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Mr Kevin Nightingale; Appellant/defendant: Mrs Caroline Nightingale; Respondent/claimant: Bromford Housing Association Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Possession Order
Outcome
appeal allowed; possession order set aside; matter remitted for rehearing on proportionality
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Disability Discrimination, Proportionality, Public Sector Equality Duty
Housing Law Discrimination Law Possession Proceedings Disability Discrimination Proportionality Public Sector Equality Duty

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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the possession order was discriminatory under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 due to disability arising from ADHD
  2. 2 Whether the judge misapplied the causation test under section 15
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality defence was properly assessed as at the date of trial

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below erred in law by failing to recognise that Calum's disability and resulting behaviour significantly influenced Bromford's decision to seek possession, thus discrimination under section 15 was made out. The judge further failed to conduct the proportionality assessment based on the factual position at the date of trial, as required, particularly in light of the absence of anti-social behaviour for two years prior to trial. The possession order must therefore be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration on up to date evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; possession order set aside; matter remitted for rehearing on proportionality

Orders

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