Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
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