Cases - David Allen v Royal Bank of Scotland
Record details
- Name
- David Allen v Royal Bank of Scotland
- Date
- [2009]
- Citation
- EWCA Civ 1213
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Disabiltity discrimination - wheelchair access - breach obligations under DDA 1995
- Summary
-
The case had been brought by a 16 year-old disabled boy who was unable to access the city centre branch of the RBS in Sheffield as it had steps up to its entrance and so was not accessible to wheelchair users.
Following a trial over three days, and consideration of an expert access report on the options for affording access to wheelchair users, the county court found that RBS had acted in breach of their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, specifically the duty to make reasonable adjustments; and that the availability of other branches for carrying out certain transactions did not amount to reasonable alternative methods of providing the service.
The court ordered that RBS install a platform lift by 30 September 2009 and that they pay Mr Allen £6,500 (plus interest) and his legal costs.
RBS appealed against the decision on the basis that the judge had erred in a number of ways, including in his setting out of the duty to make reasonable adjustments; and in not breaking down the services provided. Pending the appeal, the order to install the platform lift was stayed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that it was clear that what the judge had meant was that, by failing to consider the proposal (made by the independent expert), the defendant had not been in a position to adduce evidence to show that the duty to make adjustments to physical features had not required it to remove the offending physical feature by adopting the solution proposed by the expert. Although the language used by the judge had been unfortunate, he had not misdirected himself. He had addressed the central questions, which had been whether the reasonable adjustments duty required the bank to adopt the solution of the independent expert or whether it had been a sufficient discharge of that duty that the bank had made available the alternative facilities on which it relied. The judge had addressed those questions objectively and had reached a conclusion that had been open to him on the evidence. Moreover, the judge had correctly identified the services provided by the defendant. The judge had not been led into error by failing to analyse the nature of the services that were being provided by the bank with sufficient rigour.
It was ordered that the works be carried out by 31 August 2010, and that RBS pay an extra £3,000 to Mr Allen, plus interest; this was as a result of the extra time that he would have to wait for the works to be completed.