Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Case Study Example

Case on Judgments Secretary of for work and pensions V M [2006] UKHL 11 This paper gives the Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for the judgment in the cause of the above case. Whereas the ‘Secretary of State for Works and Pensions’ is the Appellant and ‘M’ is the Respondent; the Appellate Committee comprises of the following; Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Baroness Hale of Richmond Lord Mance While Karen Monaghan, Ulele Burnham, Garreth Wong were the counsels for the respondent, Philip Sales, Daniel Kolinsky represented Appellants as their counsels. Whereas the hearings were on 5th and 6th. Dec, 2005; the opinions were recorded on Wednesday, 8th of March, 2006; as recorded in the publications division of UK parliament. The case pertains to the following background of the respondents, as per the court publication records of the House of Lords publication and records division. The Respondent Ms. M is divorced from her husband and is the mother of two children who spend most of their time every week with their father. As the non-resident parent, she is bound by the “Child Support Act 1991’, which requires her to contribute to the costs incurred by the father towards the maintenance of the children. While recording his opinion, Lord Bingham agreed completely with the opinion of Lord Walker. Lord Bingham further gave his reasons for this agreement saying that since Ms. M now lives with a homosexual partner, the rules require her to pay more towards the maintenance of her children than the amount she might have to pay if she was living with a heterosexual partner. Opinion of Lord Bingham Going further as said above, Lord Bingham remarks that he feels the more contribution of Ms M towards these expenses is not going to interfere with the private life and it will not impair in any way, which includes her former husband and her children from him as well as her current partner and the children she has with him. Lord Bingham further opined that contributing more does not impair the trust, social intercourse and love as well as interdependence, which as per Lord Bingham are the essentials of a family life. He also remarked that this will not invade in any way the atmosphere of personal and sexual autonomy, which the concerned Lord feels are important aspects of private life. While dismissing the complaint of Ms. M regarding the features of old social security and child support regimes, Lord Bingham maintains that by enacting the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, such earlier clauses have been removed and as such Ms. M has no reason to complain on the same. Opinion of Lord Nicholls Lord Nicholls was certainly of the opinion that while Child Support Act of 1991 had the provision of paying for maintenance of children whose parents are living apart. However, as per the remarks of Lord Nicholls, the effect of such payment from a non-resident parent living with a person of opposite sex as her husband could be less than for the non-resident parent who lived with a person of same sex. As per Lord Nicholls, this was the basis of the claim for unlawful discrimination by Ms. M. The honorable lord further agued that since the earlier regulations were amended by the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, which came into force on 5th. Dec 2005, hence the alleged discrimination does not exist now. However, Lord Nicholls debates that the question before the house is whether the earlier law that was applicable until 5th. Dec. 2005 violated the Convention rights of the claimant. (Ref: UK House of Lords—Publications—Judgments http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/) Further, referring to the claim of Ms. M under article 14 read with article 8 regarding the respect for her private life, the honorable Lord was of the opinion that this further claim cannot be accepted. He was of the opinion that the nature of discrimination, which was the sexual orientation, was not enough to bring the case within the scope of article 8, under the ‘private life’ heading. The honorable Lord further explained that the article 8 with regard to the discrimination based on sexual orientation should be looked in wider context, if it has any affect on the private life of the claimant. However, in case of Ms. M , Lord Nicholls was of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that such discrimination is to have any significant adverse affect on her private life style. Opinion of Lord Walker Expressing on the background of the liability for Ms. M under the Child Support Act 1991, the honorable Lord referred to the case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v R (Kehoe) ref: (2005) UKHL 48. Lord Walker further informed that the Child Support Agency (CSA) administers the system under the Act 1991, which is a part of Government department working with the office of Secretary for Works and Pensions, to discharge its duties and powers. Lord Walker further informed that although the two children of Ms M, now aged 14 and 12 spend two and a half day in a week with her, her ex-husband is regarded as the parent for care of the children and Ms. M is the non-resident parent, formerly being the ‘absent; parent. The honorable lord further informed the court that Ms M has lived with the partner of same sex, since 1998, who is also a non-resident parent. While informing further that the same sex couple had jointly owned a house, the honorable Lord did bring the issue of housing costs as shared by the two. He further suggested that in case Ms M had been living with a man, then the liability to pay for the children’s maintenance would have been certainly lower. For this, Lord Walker gave two reasons. One reason cited was that while calculating her income, full housing costs would have been taken into account instead of half of it, being done now. Second reason given by the honorable lord was that in case of her male partner with a child, the child should have been taken as a part of the family and her disposable income would have been calculated on that basis only. Lord Walker further informed the house in brief details on the figures involved for the liability of Ms. M towards meeting her household expenses, including the housing costs, and the amount of liability towards the children maintenance under the Act. He honorable Lord also discussed about the course of litigation on this case. (Ref: Publications division UK parliament library) Opinion of Baroness Hale Baroness Hale threw some light on the Civil Partnership Act 2004, while discussing its affects on the case of Ms M. he horable baromness informed the house that Act came into force on the same day, which was also the date of hearing this case. Baroness further informed the house that as per the Act, same legal recognition is granted to same sex couples and the couples of oppsite sex, living together. She further opined that the Act treats same sex couples living together, but not married, as civil partners and the couples involving two partners of opposite sex living together but not married, as if they were married. She further informed the house that before the Act the law had treated same sex couples as two separate individuals. He honorable baroness also referred to the campaign of Gay and lesbian community to have same rights as a married couple, when two of them are living together like a family. She informed the house that prior to the Act coming into force; he Child Support Scheme used the same parameters as the welfare benefits system, although the honorable baroness did not see any connection between the two. Explaining further, Baroness Hale that for the purpose of calculation of the child support money, the parents of same sex living together were treated as two individuals; where as parents of opposite sexes living together were taken as living in a single unit. Baroness Hale also referred to Article 14 in detail regarding the non-availability of open-ended guarantee of non-discrimination, under it. While expressing her opinion on the Article 14 and private Law, she mentioned that the private law of child maintenance used to be discriminative between the mother and father. She further informs that the father was required to pay maintenance money to the mother, while mother need not to pay any support money, under the private law. She further argues that in case this system had continued, then article 14 could have been engaged fully, irrespective of other arguments. However, whether such difference of treatment could be justified was a different issue. (ref: House of Lords publication division, judgments) Opinion of Lord Mance Finally Lord Mance was of the opinion that the appeal may be allowed. He concluded his argument mentioning that this is in consideration of Ms. M not being able to establish a regime of child support as required, during the period from 13th. Aug , 2001 to 18th. Feb ,2002. The honorable Lord, therefore felt that it is unnecessary to consider any other potential inconsistency that needed to be avoided. Sources http://www.parliament.uk/lords/index.cfm http://www.parliament.uk/commons/index.cfm House of Lords – publications division, UK http://www.parliament.uk/ http://www.parliament.uk/judicial_work/judicial_work.cfm http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HLLAppellate.pdf Read More