header-logo header-logo

Adoption agency victory

28 March 2010
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

A Catholic child adoption agency has won a High Court case that could allow it to lawfully discriminate against same-sex couples.

A Catholic child adoption agency has won a High Court case that could allow it to lawfully discriminate against same-sex couples.

In Catholic Care v the Charity Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission [2010] EWHC 520 (Ch), Catholic Care sought an exemption from the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007, which make it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation in the provision of goods or services.

The agency, which has achieved success in finding parents for “hard to place” children, argued that it operates within the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, including a strong belief in the sanctity of marriage. It provides services to couples only if they are married. It claimed it had found it impracticable to find a way round the regulations and continue operating.
Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Briggs said the “submission that differential treatment which is not founded on the special needs either of the proposed adoptive parents or the children, or upon any other class of justification recognised by the developing jurisprudence on Art 14, must be discriminatory commands real respect.

 [However] the very unusual predicament of Catholic Care, its status as an adoption agency of last resort for ‘hard to place’ children and the arguably pre-eminent needs of those children who will otherwise be left unadopted may constitute a very special and unusual case for recognition under Art 14.”

 

Issue: 7410 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll