The applicants were Gurkha soldiers who complained at the differences in treatment of them as against other members of the forces as regards payment, pensions and otherwise, alleged infringement oftheir Article 14 rights, which prevented discrimination on the grounds of national or social origin.
Held: In isolation, these soldiers were treated differently and worse. Howeevr the greater cost of living in Britain rather than Nepal justified that difference. There were also other additional benefits for Gurkhas, including longer leave periods. The two groups were not in a comparable position. Rix LJ, dissenting, the restriction which did not allow more than 25% of Gurkha soldiers to have their wives accompany them was discriminatory.
Judges:
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1345, Times 16-Oct-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 289
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (Purja) v Ministry of Defence; Regina (Lama) v Same Admn 21-Feb-2003
The applicants served as Gurkha soldiers with the army. They claimed that the pensions they received, being substantially less than those paid to other servicemen were discriminatory.
Held: The positions of a retired serviceman in England and . .
Cited by:
See Also – Limbu and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 30-Sep-2008
The applicants who were retired Gurkha soldiers challenged the decision of the Secretary of State to impose a cut off of disallowing those who had retired from the armed forces before 1997.
Held: The rules applied to the Ghurkas were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Armed Forces, Human Rights
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186637