Preddy v Bull

The Supreme Court held that the refusal by hotel proprietors to allow a same-sex civil partnered couple to occupy a double bed constituted unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The court analysed whether the treatment was direct discrimination under regulation 3(1) or indirect discrimination under regulation 3(3). Three justices concluded it was direct discrimination because distinguishing between married persons and civil partners is effectively a distinction based on sexual orientation (reinforced by regulation 3(4)); two justices treated it as unjustified indirect discrimination. In either analysis the restriction could not be justified under regulation 3(3)(d). The court also rejected the argument that the Human Rights Act 1998 required a reading of the Regulations which would permit the conduct complained of: any interference with the proprietors’ article 9 rights was a proportionate limitation for the protection of others and the Regulations remained compatible with Convention rights.

This case concerned a same-sex civil partnered couple who had booked a double room at a privately owned hotel and were refused the double bed because the owners said, for religious reasons, they only let double rooms to heterosexual married couples. Proceedings under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 were brought by the couple, supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The county court found direct discrimination and awarded damages; the Court of Appeal dismissed the owners' appeal; the case proceeded to the Supreme Court.

Nature of the claim: A claim under the 2007 Regulations for discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services (hotel accommodation), seeking compensation for injury to feelings and reimbursement of additional accommodation costs.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the refusal to allow a double bed amounted to direct discrimination under regulation 3(1) or indirect discrimination under regulation 3(3).
• If indirect, whether the practice was justifiable under regulation 3(3)(d).
• Whether the Regulations had to be read compatibly with the appellants’ Convention rights under article 9 by virtue of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Court’s reasoning (concise): The court accepted that the owners sincerely manifested a religious belief but found the discriminatory effect on persons of homosexual orientation could not be permitted. Lady Hale (giving the leading judgment) concluded the distinction between marriage and civil partnership is effectively a distinction based on sexual orientation, and so the treatment was unlawful; three justices reached the conclusion that the treatment was direct discrimination, two that it was unjustified indirect discrimination, but all agreed the differential treatment was not justified. The court also held that the limitation on the owners’ article 9 rights was proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others and that the Regulations did not require a reading which would permit the discriminatory conduct.

The judgment notes the legislative context (including regulation 3(4), regulation 4 and regulation 14 of the 2007 Regulations) and the absence of a general conscientious-objection clause for individuals. It recognises the competing Convention rights but confirms that, on the facts, the statutory prohibition on discrimination should prevail.

Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the refusal to provide a double-bedded room to a same-sex civil partnered couple was unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007; three justices viewed the treatment as direct discrimination based on sexual orientation (in part because regulation 3(4) equates civil partnership and marriage for the comparator), two viewed it as unjustified indirect discrimination, and the Convention rights of the hotel owners did not justify the discriminatory conduct.

First instance: Bristol County Court (His Honour Judge Rutherford) found discrimination and awarded damages. Court of Appeal: appeal dismissed [2012] EWCA Civ 83, [2012] 1 WLR 2514. Supreme Court: appeal dismissed [2013] UKSC 73.