Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
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...
View all articles
Authors

Supreme Court hears case for different-sex civil partnerships

Sep 29, 2018, 23:18 PM
Rebecca Steinfeld; Charles Keidan, civil partnership, opposite-sex couple, appeal
Slug : supreme-court-hears-case-for-different-sex-civil-partnerships
Meta Title : Supreme Court hears case for different-sex civil partnerships
Meta Keywords : Today (14 May 2018), Rebecca Hannah Steinfeld and Charles Robin Keidan bring their case for different-sex civil partnerships before the Supreme Court
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 14, 2018, 04:34 AM
Article ID : 117116

Today (14 May 2018), Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan bring their case for different-sex civil partnerships before the Supreme Court


The couple are appealing the decision by the Court of Appeal on 21 February 2017 refusing them judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not - at that stage - to propose any change to the bar on different-sex couples entering into a civil partnership.

Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, civil partnerships are available only to same-sex couples. The appellants are a different-sex couple in a committed long-term relationship, which they wish to formalise. They have deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage based upon what they consider to be its historically patriarchal nature. They wish instead to enter into a civil partnership, which they consider would reflect their values and give due recognition to the equal nature of their relationship. They sought judicial review of the respondent’s continuing decision not to make changes to CPA 2004 to allow different-sex couples to enter in civil partnerships.

During the 2-day hearing, the Supreme Court will consider whether the bar on different-sex couples entering into civil partnerships breaches the appellants’ rights under Article 14 together with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Supreme_Court
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Load more comments
Comment by from