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

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll