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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll