PC (Mauritius) A father challenged the constitutionality of a system where 50% of places in Catholic run secondary schools were allocated to Catholic childen, and fifty per cent according to merit. He feared this would discriminate against his daughter as a Hindu. The Supreme Court upheld his claim, and the Colleges appealed.
Held: The constitution acknowledged the rights to establish church based schools, but also guaranteed against discrimination for religion. The giving of preference to one group of applicants necessarily works to the disadvantage of any group of applicants to whom preference is not given, but differentiation without more is not enough to enable the father to succeed. The differentiation required justification, but no sufficient justification had been put forward. The appeal was dismissed.
Citations:
[2004] UKPC 9
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Societe United Docks v Government of Mauritius; Marine Workers Union v Mauritius Marine Authority PC 1985
(Mauritius) Dockworkers and the Ports Authority, submitted their wage dispute to binding arbitration. The award granted a substantial wage increase which the workers then sought to have enforced. The government, brought in legislation allowing the . .
Cited – Matadeen and others v M G C Pointu and others (Mauritius) PC 18-Feb-1998
It is a well recognised canon of construction that domestic legislation, including the Constitution, should if possible be construed so as to conform to international instruments to which the state is party. Lord Hoffmann said: ‘of course persons . .
Cited – Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2 ECHR 9-Feb-1967
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to . .
Cited – Canea Catholic Church v Greece ECHR 16-Dec-1997
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 14; Not necessary to examine Art. 9; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14; Pecuniary damage – . .
Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Constitutional, Education
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192650
