header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 January 2010 / Mark Hill KC , Spencer Keen
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Faith, hope & clarity

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Professor Mark Hill QC & Spencer Keen investigate a legal minefield

Last year was highly significant for the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660) (the Regulations). The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and the higher courts began to explore some difficult issues that, until now, have merely basked in the detail of the Regulations or in arid discussion in academic legal journals.

The EAT has grappled with the breadth of the Regulations in determining which beliefs are worthy of protection: Nicholson v Grainger UKEAT/219/09 and Power v Greater Manchester Police UKEAT/0434/09: the Court of Appeal has considered whether a religious belief may constitute a conscientious objection to requirements of the workplace: Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357: and nine Supreme Court Justices have provided mutually contradictory analyses of race and religion in a school’s admissions policy: R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15,  [2009] All ER (D) 163 (Dec).

Nicholson v Grainger

Courts have been placed in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
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’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
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
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
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
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
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
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll