Question 1 of 10

Chambers received an application for pupillage from a disabled woman, Sarah, who uses a wheelchair. Chambers is not wheelchair accessible. In order to enable her to attend, the first-round interviews were organised in a building nearby which is wheelchair accessible. Each candidate was marked (on their answers to set questions about a judgment, and an advocacy exercise) using the same criteria. The top ten candidates went through to the second round of interviews. Sarah did not go through to the second round.Which of the following statements is correct?

A. Chambers should have called Sarah to a second interview to comply with their duty under s.20 of the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments. B. There was no duty to make reasonable adjustments in these circumstances. C. By holding the first-round interviews in a wheelchair-accessible building, chambers complied with its statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act. The fact that Sarah was not invited to a second interview was not, in these circumstances, unlawful discrimination. D. Chambers should not have interviewed Sarah if they were not confident that she would make it through to the second round of interviews.