LAW RANT
Stay Curious
'MOST EXPENSIVE CAKE IN UK HISTORY'
Written by Tanisha Patel
Supreme Court came to a unanimous ruling, declaring Ashers bakery’s refusal to make a cake with a slogan in support of same-sex marriage was not discriminatory. The dispute began in 2014, when the bakery refused to make a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage.” Gareth Lee, the customer, and gay –rights activist, proceeded to sue the company on the grounds for discrimination, on the grounds of sexual orientation and sexual beliefs.
Ashers originally lost the case and subsequent appeal; however, the defendants firm won its appeal at the Supreme Court. The four-and-a-half year legal dispute, costing nearly £500,000, raises questions surrounding equality and freedom of conscience. The appellant argues the case to have made him feel like a second-class citizen, making him concerned with “the implications for all of the gay community. “General Manager of Ashers Bakery adds, "I know a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today, because this ruling protects freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for everyone."
The Northern Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, being in support of Gareth Lee, has made claims to study the implications of the judgement; due to the concern with the judgements application of equality law in the commercial sphere.
President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, has ruled the Bakery to have not refused the making of the cake on the basis of sexual orientation. But, in fact, their “objection was to the message on the cake;” adding, "accordingly, this court holds that there was no discrimination on the ground of the sexual orientation of Mr Lee."
MCLAUGHLIN WINS SUPREME COURT BENEFIT CASE
Written by Tanisha Patel
The Supreme Court have ruled that it is both illegal and unjust to deny an unmarried mother of four a widowed parent’s allowance. Such a claim pressures ministers to make urgent changes to the law, as court justice’s vote by a majority of four to one. (The court justices including: Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, and Lady Black). Declaring the government’s refusal of allowing the widows pension of up to £117 a week in benefits, breached the family’s human rights. Siobhan McLaughlin’s partner John Adams died from cancer in January 2014 after living together for 23 years; she was denied a bereavement payment and widowed parent’s allowance as they were not married or in a civil partnership. The reason for which Adams did not remarry was due to a promise he had made to his first wife. McLaughlin is now the sole provider for the family, and works two jobs as a special needs classroom assistant and cleaner to support her children.
Every year, an estimated 2,000+ families face the realisation of not being eligible for bereavement benefits after the death of one parent. Under the current law, to be eligible for Widowed Parent’s Allowance, you must be eligible for child benefit; the deceased partner must have made sufficient National Insurance contributions, and you must have been married or in a civil partnership. In this case McLaughlin satisfies two of the three requirements. The fact that she was not married or in a civil partnership with her late partner means she is not eligible for the allowance. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that refusing McLaughlin of the pension breaches the human rights of the family. As she is now the sole provider of her four children, it would thereby be discriminatory refuse the benefits, as it would mean her children would be treated differently to the children of married parents.
The Supreme Court are unable to change the law. But by saying that it contradicts the Human Rights Act, puts pressure on legislatures to change the law to ensure that it works with human rights. McLaughlin’s case was the first heard by the court in Northern Ireland; she had won the original case, but it was overturned by the court of appeal.
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS V MORRISONS SUPERMARKET PLC
Written by Tanisha Patel
On the 12th January 2014 a file containing the personal details of 99,998 employees of the Defendant (Morrisons) was posted as a file onto the internet by a ‘rogue’ employee. The employee that committed this criminal act performed a breach of confidence under the Data Protection Act 1998, for the misuse of private information; as well as compromising the right for those 99,998 employees to have privacy over their personal information and details. The data consisted of the names, addresses, gender, dates of birth, phone numbers (home or mobile), national insurance numbers, bank sort codes, bank account numbers and the salary which the employee in question was being paid. As of this, the question stands at whether the employee or the employer (Morrisons) is liable.
5,518 employees of Morrisons whose data was in fact disclosed, claimed compensation, both for the breach of statutory duty (under Section 4(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998) and at common law (the misuse of private information), and a breach of the 99,998 employees right to privacy over personal information. The previous claims were put on the basis that Morrisons has both primary liability for their own acts, and secondary liability for the actions of their employees.
The High Court agreed that Morrisons had no primary liability for the beach of Data misuse by this individual employee, as they were not the data controller at the time of the breach. However, they were found to be vicariously liable as Mr Skelton’s (‘rogue’ employee) wrongdoing was carried out in the course of his employment.