Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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