The Court of Appeal decision in Royal Bank of Scotland v Allen concerns the provision of goods and services under the Disability Discrimination Act. The case turned largely on its facts and was decided using the existing authorities about the meaning of a ‘reasonable alternative method’ of providing the service. However, there was one point which could later become relevant in an employment context.

Section 21(2) of the Act says that a service provider must take such steps, by way of adjustments, as it is reasonable “for him to have to take”. This awkward wording appears deliberate but the judgment confirms that the words “have to” add nothing of significance to the test. Neither Lord Justice Dyson nor Lord Justice Wall could think of any situation in which it would be reasonable to take certain steps but it would not be reasonable to have to take them. It is hard to argue with this and so the outcome reflects badly on the draughtsman of the statute rather than the Lord Justices of Appeal. In any event, identical statutory wording appears in section 4A(1) of the Act, which concerns the adjustments that should be made by an employer, and so it is extremely likely that this section will be interpreted in the same way.