Mr Paulley, the appellant in this case, is a wheelchair user. He tried to get on a bus so he could catch a train to go onward and visit his parents. A woman with a sleeping child in a buggy was occupying the space reserved for wheelchair users. When asked to move by the driver, the woman refused, stating her buggy didn't fold down. Mr Paulley missed the bus and connecting train. He brought a claim under the goods, facilities and services provisions of the GB Equality Act 2010 that the bus operator had failed to make reasonable adjustments in their service provision to disabled customers. He won his case and was awarded £5,500.

The Recorder in the county court case had accepted the First Group had a policy of requesting non-wheelchair users to move - they had a sign which stated “Please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user.” However, their instruction to drivers was to do nothing more if a non-wheelchair user refused to move. That policy was a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which placed Mr Paulley at a substantial disadvantage, which, in turn, gave rise to the service provider's duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Act. According to the Recorder, the wording could have been stronger i.e. a 'requirement' to move and the company could have enforced a move.

The bus company won its appeal to the Court of Appeal (where the judges thought the suggestions by the Recorder were not reasonable). Mr Paulley won the appeal to the UK Supreme Court but not damages.

The Supreme Court unanimously concluded there had been a breach of reasonable adjustment requirements, although they were split on how much and the majority concluded that damages should not be awarded in such a limited case, where it was uncertain that other reasonable adjustments might have led to Mr Paulley getting on the bus. The policy of sign, followed by a request by the driver to move, followed by nothing more if the request is refused is not acceptable. The driver needs to consider whether more pressure could be put on the person to move. In essence, they need discretion to decide on a case by case basis whether anything more than a request might solve the situation and enable a wheelchair user to get on the bus.

It's an interesting case for those who provided wheelchair facilities and services to consider. For employers, keep in mind that you will normally have greater control over a situation than in public transport, where, as First Trust were at pains to point out, a stricter approach could have led to confrontation from the person asked to move or indeed other passengers, had the bus driver refused to drive off until the woman with the push chair has left the bus, for example.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0025-judgment.pdf

As ever, you will find a summary video of the Supreme Court judgement online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq9F80cy-FI