header-logo header-logo

12 April 2013
Issue: 7555 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Discrimination—Family life

Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193, [2013] All ER (D) 155 (Mar)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, 18 Mar 2013, Lord Dyson MR, Lord Justice Lewison & Lord Justice Treacy

The two year minimum period of cohabitation required to bring a claim under s 1(3) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 is not in breach of the non-discrimination requirement of Art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor the right to family life under Art 8.

Robert Weir QC (instructed by Slater and Gordon (UK) LLP) for the claimant. Jason Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.

The claimant had been cohabiting with W for approximately six months when W was fatally injured in an accident at work as a result of the admitted negligence of a third party tortfeasor. Their child, who was born after his death, was able to make a claim for loss of dependency under s 1(3)(e) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976). The claimant could not do so, however, since she and W had lived

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll