Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v M

Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v M

The majority held that the child support and housing benefit schemes did not fall within the ambit of Article 8 or Article 1 Protocol 1 so as to engage Article 14 in the circumstances of these cases. Even if there was discrimination, the threshold for engaging Article 14 was not met. Therefore, no relief was available to the claimants. The appeals of the Secretary of State were allowed and the appeals of M and Ms Langley were dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Secretary of State for Work & Pensions; Respondent: M; Appellant: Cynthia Langley; Respondent: Bradford Metropolitan District Council; Respondent: Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; Secretary of State's appeals allowed; no relief granted to M or Ms Langley.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Sexual Orientation, Child Support, Housing Benefit, Interpretation of Statutes, Remedies Under Human Rights Act
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Social Security Law Discrimination Sexual Orientation Child Support Housing Benefit Interpretation of Statutes +1 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

Appellant

M

Respondent

Cynthia Langley

Appellant

Bradford Metropolitan District Council

Respondent

Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child support and housing benefit regulations unlawfully discriminate against same-sex couples contrary to Article 14 ECHR when read with Article 8 and/or Article 1 Protocol 1.
  2. 2 Whether the relevant statutory schemes fall within the ambit of Convention rights so as to engage Article 14.
  3. 3 Whether any difference in treatment is objectively justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the child support and housing benefit schemes did not fall within the ambit of Article 8 or Article 1 Protocol 1 so as to engage Article 14 in the circumstances of these cases. Even if there was discrimination, the threshold for engaging Article 14 was not met. Therefore, no relief was available to the claimants. The appeals of the Secretary of State were allowed and the appeals of M and Ms Langley were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; Secretary of State's appeals allowed; no relief granted to M or Ms Langley.

Orders

  • No relief granted to M or Ms Langley.
  • No declaration of incompatibility or order to amend regulations.