This is the outcome of a recent CA decision. T was a schizophrenic who unlawfully sublet his council flat prior to exercising the right to buy. The LA sought possession on the basis that T had lost his status as a secure T as soon as he had sublet. Not surprisingly, an order for possession was made at first instance. But, that was overturned by the CA on the basis that there had been unlawful discrimination (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 makes it unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person by evicting them). Needless to say, there can be unlawful discrimination even if L has no knowledge of the disability or of the facts that make him disabled. All that matters is that there has been a disability and that T has been discriminated against. The real significance of the decision is that it allows T to use disability discrimination as a defence even when L would otherwise have an absolute right to possession. As a note in the SJ points out, in practical terms, if it is raised as a potential defence at the first hearing of the possession claim then it seems very likely that directions will be given for a full hearing on the issue. The reality, therefore, is that merely raising it as an arguable defence is likely to delay the possession proceedings. See note in [2007] SJ 1258 on Lewisham v Malcolm [2007] EWCA Civ 763. © Practical Lawyer