header-logo header-logo

Religion at work

01 February 2013 / Mark Hill KC
Issue: 7546 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Employment
printer mail-detail

Mark Hill QC considers the “reasonable accommodation” of religious belief in UK law

The eagerly awaited judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Eweida and Others v The United Kingdom (App Nos 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10) has sparked considerable media attention. So much so, that the legal principles involved and their nuanced application to an increasing corpus of faith-related litigation may have been lost.

The judgment related to two pairs of cases. The first concerned a British Airways employee and a nurse who both complained that dress codes at their respective places of work prevented them from openly wearing a small cross on a chain around their necks. In the second pair, a registrar of marriages and a relationship counsellor refused to offer their services to same-sex couples on the basis that a homosexual lifestyle was incompatible with their religious beliefs. All four applicants took their case to Strasbourg for oral argument.

Good news for religious liberty

In three seemingly modest, but practically highly significant ways, the judgment

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll