Douglas v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 19 Dec 2003

The applicant had sought a student loan to support his studies as a mature student. It was refused because he would be over 55 at the date of the commencement of the course. He claimed this was discriminatory.
Held: The Convention required the state not to prevent access to education, not a duty to subsidise education. Though tertiary education fell within the meaning of ‘education’ in the Convention, the loan arrangements did not. Article 14 was not engaged. ‘The bottom line is that the measures of which complaint is made have to be linked to the exercise of the right guaranteed. The Secretary of State’s argument is that the Student Support Regulations are not intended to promote the subject matter of Article 2. They are not to do with the right to education. Their purpose, as is set out in the evidence, is to encourage greater access to higher education primarily for students wishing to improve their skills and qualifications.’ The court accepted that argument.
Thorpe, Jonathan Parker, Scott Baker LJJ
Times 22-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 All ER 709
European Convention on Human Rights 14
England and Wales

  • 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 . .
    1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64, (1968) 1 EHRR 252, [1968] ECHR 3, [1967] ECHR 1
  • Cited – National Union of Belgian Police v Belgium ECHR 27-Oct-1975
    Hudoc No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+11
    The Belgian Government failed to consult a municipal police union about legislation affecting public sector employment rights. The union’s direct . .
    4464/70, (1975) 1 EHRR 578, [1975] ECHR 2
  • Cited – Schmidt And Dahlstrom v Sweden ECHR 6-Feb-1976
    ECHR No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+11 . .
    5589/72, (1976) 1 EHRR 632, [1976] ECHR 1
  • Cited – Rasmussen v Denmark ECHR 28-Nov-1984
    Article 14 requires a complainant of discrimination to show that the complaint falls within the ‘ambit’ of some substantive Convention right. . .
    8777/79, (1984) 7 EHRR 371, [1984] ECHR 17
  • 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 . .
    [2003] EWCA Civ 797, Times 28-Jun-03, [2003] 3 All ER 577
  • Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza CA 5-Nov-2002
    The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family.
    Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning . .
    [2003] 2 WLR 1533, Times 14-Nov-02, Gazette 09-Jan-03, [2002] EWCA Civ 1533, [2003] Ch 380
  • Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
    The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
    Held: The . .
    20458/92, [2001] 33 EHRR 14, (2001) 33 EHRR 307, [1998] ECHR 21, (1998) 33 EHHR 307, [1998] ECHR 21
  • Cited – O’Connor v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another CA 11-Mar-1999
    Regulations providing that a student stayed such until he concluded, or was dismissed from a course, were deeming provisions, and a student taking a year out after failing his exams, remained a student and was unable to claim benefits by way of . .
    Times 11-Mar-99, Gazette 24-Mar-99, [1999] ELR 209

Cited by:

  • Cited – 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 . .
    [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 3 WLR 113, [2004] 2 AC 557, [2004] 3 All ER 411, 16 BHRC 671, [2004] 2 FCR 481, [2004] UKHRR 827, [2004] 2 P and CR DG17, [2004] 2 FLR 600, [2004] Fam Law 641, [2004] NPC 100, [2004] 27 EGCS 128
  • Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley CA 13-Oct-2004
    The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
    Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory . .
    [2004] EWCA Civ 1309, Times 26-Oct-04

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.194069