The 179 para Judgment in  IA and Others v SSHD EWCA Civ 1516 concerns, amongst other matters, (1) the meaning of ECHR Article 8, in the contexts of family life between adult siblings and (2) the rights of persons outside the jurisdiction ( Gaza ) and (2 ) the weighing of the proportionality balance. The Court of Appeal says, at paras 60, 68 and 77, that “ family life “, within the autonomous meaning of article 8(1), is to be found, between adult siblings, only where “ additional elements of dependence involving more than the normal emotional ties “ are to be found. The Court, at para 100, says that, whilst persons seeking to enter an ECHR State from outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR will not have their own rights under Article 8, if they have pre-existing family life with a person within the territory of the ECHR, Article 8 may impose a positive obligation on a State to admit those people, if they have family life with a person within the jurisdiction. The concept of family life does not however mean that the State is under a positive obligationto admit every member of the wider family of the persons within the territory of the UK.

In R ( JWANCZUK ) v SoS for WORK & PENSIONS ( 2025 ) UKSC 42 the Supreme Court addresses Article 14 of the ECHR read in conjunction with Articles 8 and A1P1. The Court considered “ other status “, justification and the Human Rights Act interpretative interpretation. It observes that there are limits on the concept of “ other status”. As to justification, the Court applies the standard BANK MELLAT test, and refers to the wide margin of appreciation. As to the interpretative obligation, the Court considers this in the context of an exception to a general rule.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has, on 21 November 2025, found that the Welsh Government failed to comply with the PSED in deciding to discontinue funding ( for free school meals ) without conducting and publishing EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS for many policies likely substantially to affect PSED compliance, and has taken formal enforcement action.

In SMITH v MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL ( 2025 ) EWHC 2987 ( KB ) the Claimants are a married couple, with strong evangelical Christian beliefs, who wanted to foster children, and approached the Council, but did not make it past the first stage of the ASSESSMENT of their SUITABILITY. One of the reasons given for rejecting their application was that the Claimants would find it difficult to be proactive in promoting DIVERSITY. The relevant legal framework is Section 22 of the Children Act 1989, the Fostering Services ( England ) Regulations 2011, together with National Minimum Standards and Guidance, which must be taken into account, the Human Rights Act 1998 and Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR and case law relating to Article 9 and proportionality, notably BANK MELLAT and SHIVIDLER, and Sections 10 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and case law thereon. The claim was dismissed by Turner J. Examination of attitudes to homosexuality and same sex relationships of a person who has applied to be a foster care is not unreasonable : para 76. Local authorities must remain vigilant to consider any ways in which the manifestation of the religious belief of prospective foster parents may affect the welfare of the child, which is the paramount consideration : para 78.

See R (ARC Time Freehold Income Authorised Fund)v SoS for HCLG (2025) EWHC 2751 (Admin ) at paras 78-182 on the principles in relation to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention.

The Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental  Freedoms ( the ECHR ) came into effect on 3 September 1953, implementing rights stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ECHR was incorporated into UK domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998, promoted by Lord Chancellor Irvine, on 2 October 2020.

In MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL CO LTD v SoS (2025) EWCA Civ 676, a challenge by a canal owner to confirmation of a CPO, allowing the creation of a new pipe for the discharge into the canal of water and treated effluent, Males LJ reiterates, at para 95, that COMPENSATION for loss of property rights under Article 1/1 need not equate to common law damages, in this case damages payable in a claim for nuisance.

In McLEAN v ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL (2025) CSIH 13 the Court of Session holds that the local authority’s resolution facilitating the collection of relevant information about the development of St Fittick’s Park, a public park owned by the authority, and designated in the local development plan as potentially suitable for development, was not a policy decision approving development of the park. Absent a specific development proposal and details of a proposed development, an EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT was NOT required.

ECHR Article 5 confers the right to liberty. This applies save in specified cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. One of these cases, at Article 5 (1)(d), is the detention of a minor for the of purpose of EDUCATIONAL SUPERVISION. In A LOCAL AUTHORITY V LB (2025) EWHC 1264 (Fam) the Court considers what evidence is required in order for Article 5(1)(d) to be engaged and deprivation of the minor’s liberty to be justified. The Court also considered SECURE ACCOMMODATION under Section 25 of Children Act 1989, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS ORDERS, and the relationship between them.

The level of a worker’s pay does not engage ECHR Article 8 and is not within its ambit : DJALO v SoS for JUSTICE (2025) EAT 67, para 259. Nor can A1P1 be relied upon : para 260. Moreover, being a claimant in a certain type of claim is not a “ status “ for Article 14 purposes.