Steinfeld & Anor v Secretary of State for Education

For Article 14 read with Article 8, a difference in access to a state-recognised relationship falls within Article 8’s ambit where it concerns stable family life and legal recognition. A couple need not show separate financial or physical harm. The fact that an opposite-sex couple can marry does not answer the ambit question where marriage is not an effective option for them. The state must justify discrimination by a legitimate aim and proportionate means, striking a fair balance and bearing the burden of proof. By majority, the Court held that a temporary “wait and evaluate” policy could be justified while the government assessed the future of civil partnerships after same-sex marriage, but it could not continue indefinitely and required a decision within a reasonable timescale.

The appellants, an opposite-sex couple with sincere ideological objections to marriage, wished to formalise their relationship through a civil partnership. They challenged the Secretary of State’s continuing decision not to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Andrews J dismissed the claim, holding that the statutory bar was outside the ambit of Article 8 and, alternatively, that the government’s “wait and see” policy was justified: [2016] EWHC 128 (Admin). The appeal concerned whether the bar engaged Article 14 read with Article 8 and whether the government’s policy was objectively justified.

1. Disposition. By a majority, Beatson LJ and Briggs LJ dismissed the appeal. Arden LJ would have allowed it in part by declaring that the bar fell within Article 8’s ambit and that the Secretary of State’s policy was not justified. No declaration of incompatibility was made.
2. Ambit of Article 8. All three judges held that stable and committed opposite-sex relationships fall within family life. The statutory regime concerns the legal recognition of such relationships and therefore falls within Article 8’s ambit for Article 14 purposes. No separate financial loss, physical injury or comparable adverse impact was required. The availability of marriage did not remove the appellants’ complaint where sincerely held beliefs made marriage unavailable to them in practice. The Court relied on Oliari v Italy (Applications nos 18766/11 and 36030/11, 21 July 2015), Vallianatos v Greece ((2014) 59 EHRR 12) and Schalk and Kopf v Austria ((2011) 53 EHRR 20).
3. Justification. The state had to establish a legitimate aim and proportionate means, including a fair balance between the appellants’ interests and those of the community. The majority accepted that time to assess the future of civil partnerships and formulate policy was a legitimate aim. The government could consider public resources and the risk of disruptive legislative change. The current policy was objectively justified because the legislative scheme was recent, several lawful options remained open, and the government was still evaluating demand and consequences.
4. Limits on delay. The majority stressed that the discriminatory position could not continue indefinitely. The government had to decide whether to abolish civil partnerships or extend them to opposite-sex couples within a reasonable timescale. The courts should not set a precise deadline or micro-manage social policy, but the justification for delay would weaken as time passed.
5. Arden LJ’s minority reasoning. Arden LJ considered the policy disproportionate because it was open-ended, focused only on statistics concerning same-sex couples, failed to address the wider policy questions, and did not realistically assess resource implications.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal was dismissed by Beatson LJ and Briggs LJ, with Arden LJ dissenting on justification.
2. Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court). Andrews J dismissed the judicial review claim, holding that the bar was outside Article 8’s ambit and, alternatively, that the government’s policy was justified: [2016] EWHC 128 (Admin) .