header-logo header-logo

12 January 2022
Issue: 7962 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Human rights
printer mail-detail

‘Gay cake’ claim ruled inadmissible

A seven-year legal dispute about whether a Belfast bakery unlawfully discriminated by refusing a cake decoration request has stalled after the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled the claim inadmissible

In 2014, Gareth Lee, a gay man, asked Ashers Baking Co to decorate a cake with the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’. Ashers refused on the basis gay marriage was against their Christian beliefs.

Lee brought a claim for discrimination under secondary legislation prohibiting direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, political opinion or religious belief, winning at a Belfast county court and the Court of Appeal but losing at the Supreme Court. However, the ECtHR last week ruled his claim inadmissible on the grounds he had not exhausted his domestic remedies, in Gareth Lee v UK (application no 18860/19).

The judges stated, ‘Even if the applicant is correct in saying that the relevant provisions of the 2006 Regulations and the 1998 Order were enacted to protect the Convention rights of consumers, those provisions protect consumers only in a very limited way; that is, against discrimination in access to goods and services. They cannot, therefore, be said to protect consumers’ substantive rights under Arts 8, 9 or 10 of the Convention.’

They said ‘it is axiomatic that the applicant’s Convention rights should also have been invoked expressly before the domestic courts, even if the alleged breach was contingent on the outcome of their assessment’.

Expressing disappointment at a ‘missed opportunity’, Lee’s solicitor, Ciaran Moynagh, of Phoenix Law, said: ‘Mr Lee brought the appropriate and only application available to him and dealt with all arguments that arose in the course of appeals.

‘We are clear that Mr Lee’s Convention rights were engaged and put forward during the litigation. We will now consider whether a fresh domestic case is progressed.’

Issue: 7962 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll