R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) (Respondent)

This appeal was brought by a different sex couple who sought to enter into a civil partnership but were unable to do so due to the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which restricted the availability of civil partnerships to same sex couples. The issue before the court was whether the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which precluded different sex couples from entering into a civil partnership, were compatible with the appellants' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellants argued that the provisions were incompatible with their rights under article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read with article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. The government argued that the provisions were justified as they were necessary to allow time to consider the future of civil partnerships. The court held that the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 were incompatible with the appellants' rights under the Convention. The court found that the government's aim of taking time to consider the future of civil partnerships was not a legitimate aim as it did not address the perpetration of the unequal treatment. The court also found that there were less intrusive means available to the government to achieve its aim without discriminating against different sex couples. The court made a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any discrimination is justified and that less intrusive means are considered before resorting to discriminatory measures. The court also emphasized the role of the judiciary in reviewing the compatibility of legislation with Convention rights and making a declaration of incompatibility where necessary. The decision is likely to have significant implications for the availability of civil partnerships to different sex couples in the UK.