Mobility clause challenged

In Meade-Hill and another v British Council (7 April 1995), the Court of Appeal holds that a contractual mobility clause was capable of challenge on grounds that it was indirectly sex discriminatory, notwithstanding that the term had not yet been invoked, and that it was a term with an adverse impact upon women because a higher proportion of women than men are secondary earners who would find it impossible to move their workplace to a destination which involved a change of home. The Court of Appeal does not deal, however, with whether the mobility clause was justifiable.