View source for Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd (2010) EWCA Civ 265

''The appellant argued that a possession order should be set aside as, on the grounds of her bi-polar affective disorder, the maintanence of the "no animals" provision made it impossible for her to enjoy the premises under s24A [[Disability Discrimination Act 1995]]. (1) The prohibition against keeping animals in the premises did not make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for her to enjoy the premises. (2) In any event: (a)  the "no animals" term would have had the same effect if the appellant did not have the disability of bipolar disorder; and (b) no reasonable steps the respondents should have taken but failed to take were identified, particularly as variation of the term would have lead to forfeiture by the head lessor.''

==External link==
{{#bailii: [2010] EWCA Civ 265}}


[[Category:Disability discrimination]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]