Click the case name for better results:

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M: HL 8 Mar 2006

The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than someone in a heterosexual relationship. Held: The claim failed. The regulations had now … Continue reading Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M: HL 8 Mar 2006

Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others: FD 31 Jul 2006

The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction was an infringement of her human rights. Held: Such a relationship is recognised in England as a civil … Continue reading Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others: FD 31 Jul 2006

Steinfeld and Another v The Secretary of State for Education: Admn 29 Jan 2016

The claimant heterosexual couple wanted to enter into a civil partnership rather than to marry. Held: The request for judicial review failed. On the authorities, the bar did not fall within the scope or ambit of Article 8. The appellants could marry and thus enter into a legal relationship according full protection to all the … Continue reading Steinfeld and Another v The Secretary of State for Education: Admn 29 Jan 2016

Vallianatos And Others v Greece: ECHR 7 Nov 2013

Grand Chamber Judgment. The applicants alleged that the fact that the ‘civil unions’ introduced by the respondent were designed only for couples composed of different-sex adults had infringed their right to respect for their private and family life and amounted to unjustified discrimination between different-sex and same-sex couples, to the detriment of the latter. Held: … Continue reading Vallianatos And Others v Greece: ECHR 7 Nov 2013

Ladele v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Dec 2009

The appellant was employed as a registrar. She refused to preside at same sex partnership ceremonies, saying that they conflicted with her Christian beliefs. Held: The council’s decision had clearly disadvantaged the claimant, and the question was whether its policies were a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. They were. The overarching policy was … Continue reading Ladele v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Dec 2009

Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another: CA 22 Mar 2001

Discrimination – History of interactions relevant When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality of the evidence on any material … Continue reading Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another: CA 22 Mar 2001

Steinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education: CA 21 Feb 2017

Hetero Partnerships – wait and see proportionate The claimants, a heterosexual couple complained that their inability to have a civil partnership was an unlawful discrimination against them and a denial of their Article 8 rights. The argument that the appellants’ case did not come within the ambit of article 8 was maintained by the respondent. … Continue reading Steinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education: CA 21 Feb 2017

Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 13 Dec 2006

The claimants were former serving prisoners who complained that the early release provisions discriminated against them unjustifiably. Each was subject to a deportation requirement, and said that in their cases the control on the time for their early release had been vested in the respondent and not in the courts. Held: It could no longer … Continue reading Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 13 Dec 2006

Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 5 May 2005

Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR. Held: The Secretary’s appeal succeeded. Section 6 of the 1998 Act permitted the discrimination as … Continue reading Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 5 May 2005

Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1. Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused’s human rights was to … Continue reading Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G: HL 18 Jun 2008

The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters. Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater commitment to traditional family structures did not however justify the difference. The rules were unlawful discrimination.Lord Hoffmann … Continue reading In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G: HL 18 Jun 2008

Steinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary): SC 27 Jun 2018

The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .