header-logo header-logo

27 November 2013
Issue: 7586 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Christians lose appeal over hotel refusal

Supreme Court justices unanimously dismiss appeal

Two Christians who turned away a gay couple from their private hotel in Cornwall have lost their appeal at the Supreme Court.

Mr and Mrs Bull refused the couple, who are in a civil partnership, a double room because they believe sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a sin. Their policy that double rooms are available only to “heterosexual married couples” is clearly stated on their online booking form.

The couple, Mr Preddy and Mr Hall, brought proceedings under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1263), Reg 4 of which makes direct or unjustified indirect discrimination unlawful. Under Reg 3(4), civil partnership is treated the same as marriage as far as protection from discrimination is concerned.

The Bulls countered that they discriminated on the basis of marital status not sexual orientation, therefore their action constituted justified indirect, not direct, discrimination and asked that their Art 9 right to manifest their religious beliefs be taken into account.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Three of the Justices held there was direct discrimination. Two of the Justices, including Lord Neuberger, held there was unjustified indirect discrimination. They unanimously held that the 2007 Regulations engaged Art 9 but that it was a justified and proportionate protection of the rights of others.

 

Issue: 7586 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll