Bull and another v Hall and another

Bull and another v Hall and another

The refusal by the hotel keepers to provide a double-bedded room to a same-sex civil partner couple constituted unlawful discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The majority held this was direct discrimination, as civil partnership is the legal equivalent of marriage and the only relevant difference was sexual orientation. Even if indirect, the discrimination could not be justified. The limitation on the hotel keepers’ religious manifestation was proportionate and necessary for the protection of the claimants’ rights.

Parties
Appellants: Bull and another; Respondents: Hall and another; Respondents' Instructing Solicitor: Equality & Human Rights Commission; Intervener: Liberty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Provision of Goods and Services, Religious Freedom, Direct and Indirect Discrimination, Civil Partnerships, Justification of Discrimination, Proportionality, Article 9 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR
Equality and Discrimination Law Human Rights Law Sexual Orientation Discrimination Provision of Goods and Services Religious Freedom Direct and Indirect Discrimination Civil Partnerships Justification of Discrimination +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bull and another

Appellants

Hall and another

Respondents

Equality & Human Rights Commission

Respondents' Instructing Solicitor

Liberty

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal by Christian hotel keepers to provide a double-bedded room to a same-sex civil partner couple constitutes unlawful discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
  2. 2 Whether such refusal is direct or indirect discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the policy can be justified under the Regulations or Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal by the hotel keepers to provide a double-bedded room to a same-sex civil partner couple constituted unlawful discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The majority held this was direct discrimination, as civil partnership is the legal equivalent of marriage and the only relevant difference was sexual orientation. Even if indirect, the discrimination could not be justified. The limitation on the hotel keepers’ religious manifestation was proportionate and necessary for the protection of the claimants’ rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the finding of unlawful discrimination stands.
  • Damages awarded to the claimants are upheld.