Hall & Anor v Bull & Anor [2011] EW Misc 2 (CC) (04 January 2011)

Hall & Anor v Bull & Anor [2011] EW Misc 2 (CC) (04 January 2011)

The refusal to provide a double room to the claimants, who were in a civil partnership, constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The defendants' policy could not be justified by reference to religious belief, as the law requires equal treatment of civil partners and married couples. The regulations were compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the defendants' rights to manifest their religion did not override the claimants' right not to be discriminated against.

Citation
[2011] EW Misc 2 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Martin Hall; Claimant: Steve Preddy; Defendant: Peter Bull; Defendant: Hazel Bull
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Sexual Orientation, Religious Belief, Provision of Services, Civil Partnerships, Human Rights Act, European Convention on Human Rights
Equality and Discrimination Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Direct Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Sexual Orientation Religious Belief Provision of Services +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Hall

Claimant

Steve Preddy

Claimant

Peter Bull

Defendant

Hazel Bull

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to provide a double room to a same-sex civil partnership couple constitutes direct or indirect discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' religious beliefs justify the discriminatory practice under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to provide a double room to the claimants, who were in a civil partnership, constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The defendants' policy could not be justified by reference to religious belief, as the law requires equal treatment of civil partners and married couples. The regulations were compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the defendants' rights to manifest their religion did not override the claimants' right not to be discriminated against.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the claimants contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
  • Damages awarded to each claimant in the sum of £1800