Posted on 20th Feb 2012 @ 12:27 PM

Case Law Update

Bull and another v Hall and another [2012] EWCA Civ 83

The decision in this case confirms that if you are offering services to the public, you must do so in a non-discriminatory way. Religious beliefs do not automatically exempt service providers from observing the laws on equality. The court made clear that it did not think that the hotel owners in this case faced any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs; they were merely prohibited from doing so in the commercial context that they had chosen.

The respondents were a gay couple who had entered into a civil partnership. They booked, by telephone, a double bedroom at the Chymorva Hotel in Cornwall, which was run by the appellants (a married couple who hold strong Christian beliefs). The hotel's online booking form stated:

 "Here at Chymorva we have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only - thank you."

Because the respondents booked by telephone they did not see this notice. When they arrived at the hotel they were informed of the policy on double rooms. The hotel owners would have offered the respondents a twin room, but none was available, so the respondents left to seek accommodation elsewhere. The hotel owners refunded their deposit.

The respondents brought a claim under the Regulations, arguing that the hotel owners directly or indirectly discriminated against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. They sought damages.

The hotel owners denied direct or indirect discrimination, claiming that the restriction was not based on sexual orientation but instead on their belief that sex outside heterosexual marriage was sinful. The restriction applied equally to unmarried heterosexual couples. They also argued that if they had discriminated, they were justified in doing so by their right to manifest their religion under the ECHR. At first instance, the judge ruled that the respondents had suffered direct and indirect discrimination and awarded them damages.

The hotel owners appealed.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the hotel owners had directly discriminated against the respondents.

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1263) (Regulations) provide protection from direct or indirect discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Regulation 3(1) provides that a person, "A", discriminates against another, "B", if, on the grounds of the sexual orientation of B or any other person except A, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances).

Regulation 3(4) states that the fact that one of the persons (whether or not B) is a civil partner while the other is married shall not be treated as a material difference in the relevant circumstances.

This article is not intended to be advisory and is for your information purposes only.  For specific advice and assistance, please contact us

Back To News