DAMON ROSE v. RAYMOND BOUCHET [1999] ScotSC 16 (19th May, 1999)

DAMON ROSE v. RAYMOND BOUCHET [1999] ScotSC 16 (19th May, 1999)

The test for justification under section 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is partly subjective (the defender's opinion) and partly objective (reasonableness of that opinion in the circumstances). On the facts, the defender's refusal was motivated by genuine safety concerns, and it was reasonable for him to hold that opinion. The Code of Practice did not require further inquiry in these circumstances, especially as the pursuer did not provide further information or allow for dialogue. The sheriff's decision was correct and not open to challenge.

Citation
[1999] ScotSC 16
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Damon Rose; Defender and Respondent: Raymond Bouchet
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Action for Damages Under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Justification Defence, Provision of Services, Interpretation of Statutes
Disability Discrimination Civil Procedure Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Justification Defence Provision of Services Interpretation of Statutes

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damon Rose

Pursuer and Appellant

Raymond Bouchet

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Action for Damages Under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's refusal to let a flat to a blind person with a guide dog constituted unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the defender's actions were justified under section 24 of the Act on health and safety grounds
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in applying a subjective rather than objective test for justification

Ratio Decidendi

The test for justification under section 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is partly subjective (the defender's opinion) and partly objective (reasonableness of that opinion in the circumstances). On the facts, the defender's refusal was motivated by genuine safety concerns, and it was reasonable for him to hold that opinion. The Code of Practice did not require further inquiry in these circumstances, especially as the pursuer did not provide further information or allow for dialogue. The sheriff's decision was correct and not open to challenge.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Appellant found liable to respondent in expenses of the appeal.
  • Account of expenses to be lodged and taxed by Auditor of Court.