header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 April 2013
Issue: 7555 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Discrimination—Family life

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll