Clark v TDG Ltd
UK legal case concerning disability discrimination
Clark v TDG Ltd (t/a Novacold Ltd) [1999] IRLR 318 is a UK labour law case concerning the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Facts
Mr Clark was injured at work (a frozen food warehouse in Hull). He was then dismissed when an orthopaedic doctor said he did not know when he would be able to start again.
Judgment
Mummery LJ said that the DDA drew no distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, and a justification defence is always available. The comparator was someone who was not disabled and could do the work. There certainly was discrimination, but on the question of justification, no attention had been paid to the Code of Practice.
Significance
Since Directive 2000/78/EC, there has been an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act so that a distinction between direct and indirect discrimination was introduced, and the language of the Act clarified. The entire Act has subsequently been replaced by the Equality Act 2010.
In Lewisham LBC v Malcolm and EHRC, the House of Lords expressly disapproved the decision (with Baroness Hale dissenting).
“Clark v TDG Ltd” enters the record as uK legal case concerning disability discrimination. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Clark, legal and case can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Clark v TDG Ltd” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Clark, legal and case provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16949024. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1999, 1995, 2000 and 2010.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Clark v TDG Ltd”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Clark v TDG Ltd primary sources, Clark v TDG Ltd archive and Clark research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Clark v TDG Ltd”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Clark v TDG Ltd” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.