header-logo header-logo

21 February 2017
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court of Appeal rules against civil partnership for same-sex couples

Straight couples cannot enter into civil partnerships…yet, the Court of Appeal has held.

Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWCA Civ 81 concerned an opposite-sex couple’s challenge to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, on the grounds same-sex couples can have a civil partnership but they cannot.

The couple contended that this bar breached their Art 14 right not to be discriminated against, and their Art 8 right to private and family life. They said they wanted the rights and benefits of marriage but had “deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage based upon what they consider to be its historically patriarchal nature”.

The 2004 Act ended generations of inequality by giving same-sex couples not only the right to have their relationship recognised in the eyes of the law but also to equal rights with those of married couples regarding tax, property, death and other matters. Marriage between same-sex couples became legal in 2013.

Since the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the number of new civil partnerships has gone down and the number of civil partnership dissolutions has gone up—many civil partners have converted their partnerships into marriages. Consequently, the government has said it wants to wait to see the impact of gay marriage before phasing out or abolishing civil partnership.

Lady Justice Arden and Lords Justice Beatson and Briggs said there was a potential violation of the couple’s Art 8 and 14 rights, but made a declaration that the government could reconsider her policy “either now or at a later time, as appropriate”.

Nigel Shepherd, chair of Resolution, said: “From a purely legal perspective, it makes little sense to retain civil partnership.

“But, if the option of civil partnerships for same sex couples is to continue to be retained, then civil partnerships must also be available to opposite sex couples in order to avoid discrimination.”

A Private Member's Bill proposing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is due to have its second reading on 24 March 2017, and has cross-party support.

Lauren Evans, family law solicitor at Kingsley Napley, said: “It is imperative now that MPs take up the cause and don’t hide behind the government's current open-ended ‘wait and see’ policy.”

Issue: 7735 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll