Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

CHILD SUPPORT/HUMAN RIGHTS: M v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] UKHL 11

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : m-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2006-ukhl-11
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 20, 2006, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88685

(House of Lords; Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Mance; 8 March 2006) [2006] 2 FLR 56

The non-resident parent was living with a same-sex partner. When the non-resident parent's child support payments were being calculated, the legislation required that contributions by the same-sex partner to the couple's joint mortgage were to be treated as reducing the parent's deductible housing costs. Had the partner been of the opposite sex, the same payments would have been treated as part of the parent's own mortgage payments. As a result of this difference in treatment, the non-resident parent was required to pay more in child support than her heterosexual counterpart. The non-resident parent argued that this was a clear case of discrimination under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (the European Convention), Art 14 as read in conjunction with Art 8, and Art 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention.

The court considered that the method of calculation of the non-resident parent's maintenance assessment did not fall within the ambit of the right to respect for family relationship between the parent and her children. Similarly, the link between an increased child support liability and respect for private life was very tenuous indeed. It was within the UK's margin of appreciation whether to treat same-sex couples as a family unit or as two individuals. Baroness Hale delivered a dissenting judgment, considering that this was a case of unjustified discrimination in the enjoyment of the European Convention right to respect for private and family life.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from