Case of claimant falling pregnant and taking time out of Course of study at Uni to have child and also find work for obvious reasons. She signed on and was available for and actively seeking work. Indeed, this was proven in that she did secure a job and did sart work until the child was born. Case failed on indirect discrimination at local SSAT. Leave to appeal granted and now with Commissioner. There have been several t-ing and fro-ing between myself on behalf of the claimant and the Secretary of State to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has issued a Direction as below and requires, if we can, to provide him with "any further light". I would appreciate anyione with a decent "torch" of an idea or thought. I have read the references in full provided by the Commissioner but they only serve to cloud what I feel is essentially a simple issue; but I would say that wouldn't I? Direction states in full:

"I refer to the analysis of Musthill L J concerning indirect discrimination in Secretary of State v. Jones R(G)2/91, pps 109/110.

In his submission of 18.6.04, the Secretary of State Submits that the criterion for selection - or comparator group - would be intercalating students. Since no figures exist, it cannot be shown that there was any indirect discrimination and a claim on that basis fails. But there are many and diverse reasons why students take leave of absence or intercalate. So far as I can see, none has any sexual connection accept pregnancy and, therefore, it might seem that prima facie there would be indirect discrimination. Alternatively, it may be that the concept of indirect disrimination is not really applicable at all to the particular circumstances with which we are dealing. Alternatively, if the criterion for selection was being a student, the same result would occur.

I am a good deal puzzled by this conundrum and I would appreciate any further light either party can show on it. Could I have a response within one month of issue hereof?

So far as any objective justification is concerned, if it comes to that, might the remarks of Peter Gibson L J in Secretary of State v. Walter R(JSA)3/02 para have some bearing.

I am prepared to hold an oral hearing if either party would like me."

Any help would be appreciated. And thank you in advance.