UK supreme court case studies

What was the outcome of Steinfeld & Keiden 2018 regarding civil partnerships?

The court ruled that the civil partnership law was discriminatory, allowing same-sex couples to achieve equal rights. Significance: This ruling marked a major step toward equality for LGBTQ+ individuals in the UK and paved the way for broader recognition of same-sex relationships. Background: The case was brought by two men who argued that the inability to enter a civil partnership denied them equal rights compared to heterosexual couples.

What is the significance of the ruling in Steinfeld & Keiden 2018?

This ruling marked a major step toward equality for LGBTQ+ individuals in the UK and paved the way for broader recognition of same-sex relationships.

What is the background of the case Steinfeld & Keiden 2018?

The case was brought by two men who argued that the inability to enter a civil partnership denied them equal rights compared to heterosexual couples.

What did Tigere v Secretary of State highlight regarding public funds?

The court found that the refusal of public funds for education to Miss Tigere was discriminatory against non-UK residents under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What is the significance of Tigere v Secretary of State?

This case emphasized the importance of equal access to education and non-discrimination in public funding.

What was the court's finding in Reilly v DWP regarding welfare reform?

The court found that the DWP failed to properly consider the impact of cuts to the Employment and Support Allowance on vulnerable individuals.

What is the significance of Reilly v DWP?

This ruling highlighted the need for government accountability in welfare reforms and the duty to protect vulnerable populations.

What is the background of Reilly v DWP?

The case was brought by individuals who argued that the reforms disproportionately affected those in most need of support.

What was the significance of NHS v Y?

The ruling set a precedent for ensuring that public authorities must respect the rights of individuals to receive necessary healthcare in accordance with legal obligations.

What is the background of NHS v Y?

The case involved a young man with severe disabilities arguing that his right to necessary healthcare was being jeopardized by the actions of the NHS.

What was the ruling in Factortame regarding fishing quotas?

The court ruled that UK legislation denying access to fishing quotas for EU fishermen was in conflict with European Union law.

What is the significance of Factortame?

This case highlighted the supremacy of EU law over national legislation, reinforcing the principle of legal equality among EU member states.

What is the background of Factortame?

The case arose when a UK fishing company challenged legislation that affected its ability to fish in UK waters, arguing it was inconsistent with EU regulations.

What was the court's finding in Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice?

The court ruled that the prohibition of assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961 was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly in relation to the right to private and family life.

What is the significance of Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice?

This case brought national attention to the rights of individuals with terminal illnesses and raised important questions about autonomy and the right to die.

What is the background of Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice?

The case was brought by Tony Nicklinson, who suffered from locked-in syndrome, and challenged the legality of assisted suicide after being denied the right to choose to end his life with assistance.

What was the ruling in Miller v Prime Minister?

The court ruled that the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament for an extended period was unlawful, as it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

What is the significance of Miller v Prime Minister?

This case underscored the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK and affirmed that the Prime Minister is subject to the law, reinforcing the idea that governmental powers should not undermine parliamentary democracy.

What is the background of Miller v Prime Minister?

The case arose from the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament in the lead-up to Brexit, prompting legal challenges from Gina Miller and others who argued that this action curtailed Parliament's ability to scrutinize the government's plans.

What was the ruling in Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union?

The court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) to begin the process of leaving the EU without an Act of Parliament.

What is the significance of Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union?

This case established that the government cannot use prerogative powers to circumvent the legislative process, reinforcing the principle that Parliament must be involved in major constitutional changes.

What is the background of Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union?

The case was brought by Gina Miller, who challenged the government's authority to initiate Brexit without explicit parliamentary approval, asserting that the decision impacted the legal rights of UK citizens.