This landmark House of Lords judgment ruled on the meaning of disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The facts of this particular case concerned the housing provisions of the Act but is equally applicable to the employment sphere. The appellant was a local authority who appealed against the dismissal of its possession proceedings against the respondent, who was a schizophrenic. The respondent had illegally sublet his flat with the result that the local authority issued him with a notice to quit. There was no evidence that the appellant had been aware of the respondent’s disability. The Court of Appeal dismissed its possession proceedings and found that they had constituted unlawful discrimination contrary to the 1995 Act. It was for the House of Lords to decide whether or not it was necessary for the disability to have played a motivating part in the mind of the alleged discriminator in leading him to subject the disabled person to the treatment complained of. They allowed the appeal. It was held that there was no evidence that the local authority knew that the respondent suffered from schizophrenia. Further there was no evidence to suggest that his schizophrenia had played a motivating factor in their decision to issue possession proceedings. It wasn’t enough that there may have been a causal connection unknown to the local authority between the respondent’s decision to sublet and his disability. The correct approach was to compare the treatment that the disabled person had received with that of a non-disabled person in the same position ie. with the treatment of a non-disabled person who had broken the terms of the lease or employment contract. If the respondent landlord or employer can convince the court that he would have reacted in the same way towards a person without a disability then there is no discrimination. This decision not to give preferential treatment to disabled tenants may have an effect on the treatment of disabled employees. It may be helpful to employers faced with some of the previously accepted wider implications of the 1995 Act in giving preferential treatment to disabled employees as it provides a defence to an employer at an earlier stage than had earlier been possible by proving that there is a lack of actual discrimination.