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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll