Sir Terence Etherton MR agreed with counsel that ‘the only sure common thread running through the various descriptions of the ambit test, for the purposes of article 14, in the several speeches in M [2006] 2 AC 91 is that the connection or link between the facts and the provisions of the Convention conferring substantive rights must be more than merely tenuous’. He summarised the position: ‘The claim is capable of falling within article 14 even though there has been no infringement of article 8. If the state has brought into existence a positive measure which, even though not required by article 8, is a modality of the exercise of the rights guaranteed by article 8, the state will be in breach of article 14 if the measure has more than a tenuous connection with the core values protected by article 8 and is discriminatory and not justified. It is not necessary that the measure has any adverse impact on the complainant in a positive modality case other than the fact that the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of the positive measure in question.’
Sir Terence Etherton MR, McCombe LJ, Sir Patrick Elias
[2017] EWCA Civ 1916, [2018] 2 WLR 1063, [2017] WTLR 1469, [2017] WLR(D) 799, (2018) 162 BMLR 1, [2018] QB 804, [2018] PIQR P5
Bailii, WLRD
Fatal Accidents Act 1976, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.599717