Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy

Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy

The refusal to provide a double-bedded room to the respondents, a homosexual couple in a civil partnership, constituted direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The appellants' policy, though framed in terms of marital status, was necessarily linked to sexual orientation because homosexual couples could not marry. The Regulations' interference with the appellants' right to manifest their religious beliefs was justified, necessary, and proportionate for the protection of the rights of others, and thus compatible with the ECHR.

Parties
Appellant: Bull & Bull; Respondent: Hall & Preddy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Sexual Orientation, Provision of Goods and Services, Religious Freedom, Civil Partnerships
Equality Law Human Rights Law Discrimination Law Direct Discrimination Sexual Orientation Provision of Goods and Services Religious Freedom Civil Partnerships

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bull & Bull

Appellant

Hall & Preddy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to provide a double-bedded room to a homosexual couple in a civil partnership constitutes direct discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
  2. 2 Whether the Regulations, as applied, are compatible with Articles 8, 9, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
  3. 3 Whether the manifestation of religious belief can justify discrimination in the provision of commercial services

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to provide a double-bedded room to the respondents, a homosexual couple in a civil partnership, constituted direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The appellants' policy, though framed in terms of marital status, was necessarily linked to sexual orientation because homosexual couples could not marry. The Regulations' interference with the appellants' right to manifest their religious beliefs was justified, necessary, and proportionate for the protection of the rights of others, and thus compatible with the ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration of direct discrimination against the respondents affirmed
  • Damages for injury to feelings (£1,800 each respondent) upheld