Ratcliffe should be compulsory reading for all family practitioners. David Burrows explains why
For the family lawyer Ratcliffe v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 39, [2009] All ER (D) 25 (Feb) performs three separate functions.
● First, it shows the Court of Appeal looking at dependant's pensions for a relatively narrow class of unmarried claimant. To that extent it is of limited value, perhaps.
● Second, it shows the Court of Appeal carefully analysing a Human Rights Act 1998 issue, in this case in the field of discrimination.
● And finally it provides an example of a meticulous approach—by Lord Justuce Hooper, who gave the lead judgment—to the exercise of a judicial discretion; and in that wider context, the judgment is of value, to judge and practising family lawyer alike.
Barbara Ratcliff e had lived with Lt Cdr K since 1976, but they had not married nor had they had any children. They lived as a married couple and were so regarded by most people. Lt Cdr
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
