header-logo header-logo

12 April 2013
Issue: 7555 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Discrimination—Family life

Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193, [2013] All ER (D) 155 (Mar)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, 18 Mar 2013, Lord Dyson MR, Lord Justice Lewison & Lord Justice Treacy

The two year minimum period of cohabitation required to bring a claim under s 1(3) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 is not in breach of the non-discrimination requirement of Art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor the right to family life under Art 8.

Robert Weir QC (instructed by Slater and Gordon (UK) LLP) for the claimant. Jason Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.

The claimant had been cohabiting with W for approximately six months when W was fatally injured in an accident at work as a result of the admitted negligence of a third party tortfeasor. Their child, who was born after his death, was able to make a claim for loss of dependency under s 1(3)(e) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976). The claimant could

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll