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
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

PENSIONS: Ratcliffe v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 39

Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : ratcliffe-v-secretary-of-state-for-defence-2009-ewca-civ-39
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 3, 2009, 08:13 AM
Article ID : 88813

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Wall and Hooper LJJ; 3 February 2009)

The woman had cohabited for over 25 years with the deceased serviceman and had cared for him during his long illness, which had been caused by his exposure to asbestos during service with the Royal Navy, until he died. Because the couple had not been married, the woman was not entitled to a war pension other than in exceptional circumstances. Subsequent legislation, which did not apply in this case, made provision for war pensions to be paid to unmarried partners. The woman argued that the decision to refuse her a war pension was a breach of her human rights, in that it was discrimination against her on the basis of her unmarried status, in breach of Art 14.

The appeal was dismissed. Although married and unmarried couples were in an analogous position for the purposes of Art 14, there was a historic justification for making the distinction. The decision as from what point in time unmarried partners were put in an analogous position to spouses in the field of pensions was a decision for the government and was not one with which the courts would normally interfere.

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