Restaurant did not discriminate by refusing to act as takeaway

A restaurant at a theme park did not discriminate by refusing to serve food to a disabled family which wanted to eat in a picnic area open to everyone, rather than at the restaurant's outdoor tables.

The Court of Appeal heard that Melissa Edwards, who has Down's Syndrome with autism and challenging behaviour, brought the claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 against Yorkshire's Flamingo Land theme park, zoo and holiday resort.

Lord Justice Longmore said the district judge, who awarded Melissa £4,000 damages, had taken "too broad an approach" to the question, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, as to what service was being provided.

"An owner or operator of a restaurant/bar is not a mere meal provider; he provides a service which can be best described as 'serving meals and drinks at tables prepared with chairs and eating equipment such as glasses and cutlery'.

"That may be outside or inside but it will usually be within the area operated as a restaurant," he said.

"To my mind that is different from the service of a takeaway establishment which provides food and drink to be consumed away from the premises without any accompanying services. One establishment could, of course, provide both services but the services are distinct from one another."

Delivering the leading judgment in Edwards v Flamingo Land [2013] EWCA Civ 801, Longmore LJ said that otherwise "both a sophisticated and unsophisticated restaurant" could be forced to provide a takeaway service for disabled customers under the DDA.

In the same way a takeaway could be forced to allow disabled customers to eat inside its premises.

The court heard that Melissa's father is blind and her sister has cystic fibrosis, and they were staying in the holiday resort at the time. The restaurant involved, the Coach House, has an outdoor seating area with a low screen to separate it from a picnic area where people can eat their own food and drink.

Lord Justice Longmore said that although this gave Melissa's claim "some credence", it could not make "any difference of substance".

He went on: "Suppose that the picnic area was situated a little distance away across a road or a river.

"It could scarcely be said that the restaurant then had a 'policy' not to serve takeaway meals which might require to be adapted for disabled persons."

Longmore LJ dismissed Melissa Edwards' appeal. Lady Justices Black and Gloster agreed.