The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so far as it failed to recognise same sex marriages. She now sought a protective costs order.
Held: The present proceedings sought to establish a matter of public law. There was little chance of section 11(3) of the 1973 Act being read down, but the case was not unarguable. Applying the Corner House case principles, there was a matter or proper and considerable public interest. The petitioner did however have a private interest in the issues. Although a protective costs order was not made, the court made an order limiting the amount of costs which the Lord Chancellor’s representatives might claim.
Judges:
Sir Mark Potter P
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 835 (Fam)
Links:
Statutes:
Family Law Act 1986 55, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 11(c), Civil Partnership Act 2004, European Convention on Human Rights 88, Human Rights Act 1998
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Cited – Bellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgender Male to 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 – S L v Austria ECHR 9-Jan-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+8 ; Not necessary to examine Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Goodwin 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 . .
Cited – Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 1-Dec-1998
A homosexual claimed that an award of custody of his daughter to her mother was an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family life, and also with his right to respect for his private life since he was required in respect of his . .
Cited – Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 21-Dec-1999
There was a difference in treatment between the applicant and a comparator based on the applicant’s sexual orientation, a concept which is undoubtedly covered by Article 14. The list set out in this provision is of an indicative nature and is not . .
Cited – Regina v Lord Chancellor’s Department ex parte Child Poverty Action Group Admn 6-Feb-1998
The claimant sought an order with regard to its costs in an anticipated application to the court. The application was refused. Requests in a public interest action for an advance order for costs could only be awarded in very exceptional . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 21-Dec-1999
There was a difference in treatment between the applicant and a comparator based on the applicant’s sexual orientation, a concept which is undoubtedly covered by Article 14. The list set out in this provision is of an indicative nature and is not . .
Cited – Johnston and Others v Ireland ECHR 18-Dec-1986
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage . .
Cited – B And L v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Sep-2005
The claimants said that UK law was inconsistent in its treatment of marriage between in-laws, since it provided that it was available only by means of a private Act of parliament.
Held: The provision was irrational and infringed the human . .
Cited – Frette v France ECHR 26-Feb-2002
A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article . .
Cited by:
See Also – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Human Rights, Costs
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240373
