Bull v Hall [2013] UKSC 73

In brief

Christian hoteliers Mr and Mrs Bull refused to let a double-bedded room to Mr Preddy and Mr Hall, civil partners, because their sincerely held religious belief was that sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage were sinful. The Supreme Court held unanimously (on slightly different routes) that this was direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and that the interference with the Bulls' article 9 right to manifest religion was proportionate given the competing article 8 and article 14 rights of Mr Preddy and Mr Hall. Lady Hale, delivering the leading judgment, emphasised that equality law protects identity and protected characteristics, not merely conduct, and that religious conviction cannot justify refusing equivalent treatment in the provision of goods, facilities and services.

Key provisions

• §52–54 (Hale); §88–91 (Neuberger) — Article 9 manifestation of religion is limited by the equality rights of others: Where a service provider asserts that providing an equivalent service to a same-sex couple would breach their sincerely held religious belief, the proportionality analysis under article 9(2) balances the manifestation of religion against the equality rights (articles 8 and 14) of the couple. The Supreme Court held the interference with the Bulls' religion was proportionate because they ran a commercial hospitality business serving the public, and the equality duty attached to that commercial activity, not to their private life.
• §57–61 (Hale) — Civil partnership treated as materially equivalent to marriage for equality purposes: Regulation 3(4) of the 2007 Regulations required civil partnership to be treated as not materially different from marriage for the purposes of assessing discrimination. The Supreme Court confirmed that refusing to provide equivalent accommodation to a civil-partnered couple that would have been provided to a married couple was direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
• §35–37 (Hale) — Commercial context strengthens the equality duty: A hotel is a commercial establishment that holds itself out as serving the public. The commercial context reduces the weight given to the service provider's personal religious convictions in the proportionality balance, because the service is offered to the public generally on commercial terms.

When relevant

Disputes where a service provider, employer or staff member invokes religious or philosophical belief to justify differential treatment of a trans person (e.g. refusing equivalent accommodation, facilities access, or service). Hall & Preddy grounds the proportionality analysis that equality rights prevail in the commercial/public context over the manifestation of religious conviction. Pair with Forstater and Higgs on the protected-belief side and Bank Mellat on the methodology side.