MB v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions

The existence of a legislative framework for gender recognition under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, including the requirement to annul a subsisting marriage, does not contravene the principle of equal treatment under EU law or constitute unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The conditions for recognition are not unjustifiably restrictive or discriminatory in light of Strasbourg and ECJ jurisprudence.

Parties: Appellant: MB; Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 31 July 2014
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Gender Recognition, State Pension Entitlement, Equal Treatment Directive, Gender Reassignment, Discrimination Based on Gender Reassignment

Social Security Law Equality and Discrimination Law European Union Law Gender Recognition State Pension Entitlement Equal Treatment Directive Gender Reassignment Discrimination Based on Gender Reassignment

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2

Parties

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the refusal to grant a state pension at age 60 to a male-to-female transsexual who has not obtained a gender recognition certificate is contrary to the principle of equal treatment under Council Directive 79/7/EEC
2 Whether the requirement to annul a subsisting marriage before obtaining a full gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is unlawfully discriminatory under EU law or the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed