Timbrell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 22 Jun 2010

The claimant had undertaken male to female treatment including surgery and lived as a woman, though continuing to live with her wife. She sought payment of a pension at 60, but was refused. The regulations required a gender recognition certificate issued under the 2004 Act, which in turn required that she divorce her wife. She appealed (with the support of the respondent) against the refusal of the UTAAC to find that she met the requirements.
Held: The Richards case established that the UK law before the 2004 Act did not satisfy the Directive. The claimant had initially applied and been rejected before the 2004 Act. That application must be judged on the law as it stood. Richards said only that the should be changed, not how it should be changed. The law applicable at the time was discriminatory, and the respondent could not rely on that law to deny the claimant her rights.

Thorpe, Moore-Bick, Aikens LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 701, [2010] WLR (D) 155, [2010] Fam Law 921, [2010] Pens LR 245, [2010] 3 CMLR 42, [2010] ICR 1369, [2011] AACR 13
Bailii, WLRD
Gender Recognition Act 2004, Council Directive 79/7/ EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security
England and Wales
Appeal from(Un-named) Retirement pensions UTAA 12-Mar-2009
. .
CitedRichards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Social Policy) ECJ 27-Apr-2006
Ms Richards, previously a married male, had undergone gender re-assignment surgery. She remained married thereafter. Ms Richards applied to the DWP for a pension from the age of 60. That was refused by the Secretary of State for the Department of . .
CitedGoodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
CitedBellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgendered Male/Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .

Cited by:
CitedM v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 30-Jul-2010
FTTTx National Insurance contributions – gender dysphoria – determination of pensionable age – whether possible to interpret ‘woman’ as including person with gender dysphoria living as a woman – whether directly . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Discrimination, European

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.417108