header-logo header-logo

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

Religion at work

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll