Who's On The Bus? Decision Of UKSC Could Have Wide-Reaching Consequences

This year Baker & Partners sponsored the University of Leicester Law Review Essay Contest, with the winner Jeremy Elliott receiving a week's placement with the firm. As part of the work he undertook with Baker & Partners, Jeremy produced the following briefing paper:

Is the designated wheelchair space on a bus purely for wheelchair users? Do they have priority over other passengers? On 15th June 2016 the UK Supreme Court sat to hear FirstGroup Plc (Respondent) v Paulley (Appellant) on this very topic. The case was heard by seven judges - as opposed to the usual five - a measure reflective of the public importance of the matter in issue. On 24th February 2012, Doug Paulley, a wheelchair user, was prevented from boarding a bus when a woman with a sleeping child in a pushchair refused to vacate the space designated for wheelchair users. Mr Paulley brought a discrimination claim against the bus company, FirstGroup Plc, and was successful in Leeds County Court on the basis that the incident amounted to an act of direct discrimination. FirstGroup brought an appeal which was upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal. It held that the company's "provision, criterion or practice" ('PCP') was satisfactory as it met the reasonable adjustments test under the Equality Act 2010, and was followed correctly. This judgment further avers that the driver had no power to require (rather than merely request) a passenger to move out of the wheelchair space, or to remove them from the bus if they refused to do so. However, in Black and Others v Arriva North East Ltd [2013], on similar facts the Middlesbrough County Court came to a contrary conclusion. The Supreme Court's judgment shall clarify the position. Lord Justice Lewison observed that this is not a case to decide whether a non-wheelchair user should vacate the wheelchair space on a bus for someone who uses a wheelchair - "common decency" dictates that they do so when and where they can. This case instead considered whether a bus company must instigate a policy requiring this movement, should the matter arise. Is the duty merely with the passengers or with the driver as well? Even though the court of first instance felt it was, and that this measure was appropriate, the Court of Appeal deemed it "a step too far". In reaching its decision the Court of Appeal departed from the court of first instance in a number of key respects. It felt that the court had misconstrued the test to determine direct...