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.

In J V NE SOMERSET COUNCIL (2025) EWCA CIV 478 the appeal was concerned with whether a profoundly disabled 14-year-child was deprived of his liberty. The Court of Appeal held that his care arrangements did amount to a deprivation of his liberty. For that there had to be a Court Order under Article 5 . The consent of the local authority to his confinement was not sufficient.

In WALSALL MBC v A MOTHER (2025) EWHC 929 (Fam) Lieven J says that the applicability of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights in civil cases depends on the existence of a “dispute” over the civil right in question. The word “dispute” has to be given a substantive meaning rather than a formal one. It is necessary to look beyond the appearances of and language used and concentrate on the realities of the situation according to the circumstances of each case. The dispute had to be genuine and of a serious nature. Unlike the situation in respect of criminal charges under Article 6(3), Article 6(1) gives no authoritative rights to legal assistance in civil disputes. Nor did Article 6 imply that the State has to provide free legal aid for every dispute relating to “civil rights”. The rest is whether legal assistance is “indispensable” for effective access to the Court.

The Appellant in R (YVR) v BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (2025) EWCA Civ 393 is a severely disabled young man who will never be able to work and who is dependent on state benefits.  His eligible social care needs have been assessed and are met by Birmingham City Council, which charges him for the provision of those services, as it is entitled but not obliged to do by the applicable legislation, Section 14 of the Care Act 2014 and Regulations.  The issue on the appeal was whether the Council’s charging policy was adopted in breach of the PSED on the ground that the Council failed to have “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity for severely disabled persons such as the Appellant.  The Judge held that there was no breach of the PSED.  The Appeal to the Court of Appeal failed.

Read more »

In SULLIVAN v ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL (2025) EWCA Civ 379, Underhill LJ observed, at paragraph 115, that it is often the case in claims based on Article 14 of the Convention that issues of analogous position, status and objective justification overlap.  Lewis LJ reiterated, from paragraph 26, that:-

• Article 14 can be considered only in conjunction with the enjoyment of one or more of the substantive rights or freedoms set out in the Convention; and
• In general terms, the approach to the question of whether differential treatment is contrary to Article 14 involves consideration of four broad issues:
• does the subject matter of the complaint fall within the ambit of one of the Convention rights?;
• has the person making the claim been treated less favourably than other people who are in an analogous, or relevantly similar, situation?;
• is that difference in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic amount to a status?; and
• is the difference in treatment objectively justifiable? That in turn involves consideration of whether the measure giving rise to the differential treatment pursues a legitimate aim and whether there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. The burden is on those seeking to contend that measures are objectively justified to demonstrate that this is so.

Read more »

In N.S, v UK, Judgment 25 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights is concerned about the making of a final adoption order and compliance with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The issue ( paras 159/160 ) was whether the order was necessary in a democratic society. The Court set out (paras 165-171 ) the general principles relevant to child welfare measures. The Court finds no violation of Article 8.

In R ( RWU ) v ACADEMY GB (2025 ) EWCA Civ 147 it is held that the trigger or threshold test for identifying a case of  potential CHILD CRIMINAL EXPLOITATION is whether the state authorities were aware or ought to have been aware of circumstances giving rise to a credible suspicion that the child concerned had been trafficked or exploited or that there was a real and immediate risk of their being trafficked.

In AHMED v AKBAR ( 2024 ) EWHC 2433 ( KB ) injunctive relief , pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, was granted, in a claim for misuse of private and confidential information concerning the claimant’s financial affairs, where there was an unacceptable risk of further publication by the defendant. Article 8 of the ECHR was held on the balance of probabilities to outweigh Article 10.

In QX v SSHD ( 2024 ) UKSC 26 a seven Justice Supreme Court emphasizes both Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the common law right to a fair trial. As regards the latter, at paragraph 53, the Court states that the “fundamental importance “ of the domestic right should not be disregarded. The object of ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS is to do justice according to law. Doing justice involves not only arriving at a just result but arriving at it in a JUST MANNER. The essential ingredients of a fair trial can vary according to the subject matter and the nature of the proceedings, but the right to a fair trial is fundamental under domestic law and does NOT depend on the categorisation of the rights or interests at stake in the proceedings as “ civil rights or obligations “ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.
Read more »

In SUTCLIFFE v SoS for Education ( 2024 ) EWHC 1878 ( Admin ) the Court observes that Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the freedoms of religion and expression, are both qualified rights, subject to the public interest balance test. It was fundamental that teachers should not only educate but should also safeguard the wellbeing of children in their care, and treat them with dignity and respect. Insofar as the Teachers’ Standards qualified a teacher’s Article 9 and 10 rights, such qualifications were proportionate.