Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Editorial

  • Mark Hill
  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Editorial
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Editorial
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Editorial
      Available formats
      ×

Abstract

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 [2008] UKHL 56.

2 [2008] UKHL 53.

3 See my previous Editorial at (2007) 9 Ecc LJ 247–248.

4 R (on the application of Baiai and Trzinska & others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53, at para 37, per Baroness Hale of Richmond (emphasis added).

5 See Hill, M, Ecclesiastical Law (third edition, Oxford, 2007), para 5.34.

6 The existence of such a right has been questioned by Doe, N: see Legal Framework of the Church of England (Oxford, 1996), pp 358362 . He styles it ‘a legal fiction’ on p 359.

7 For an authoritative and revisionist view doubting the received understanding and approving Doe (above), see M Smith, ‘An interpretation of Argar v Holdsworth’, (1998) 5 Ecc LJ 34, and, for a spirited defence of the orthodox view, see J Humphreys, ‘The right to marry in church: a rehabilitation of Argar v Holdsworth’, (2004) 7 Ecc LJ 405.

8 See the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s 8(2); the Marriage Act 1949, s 5A (as amended by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986, s 3 and the Marriage Act 1949 (Remedial) Order 2007, SI 2007/438, art 2(b)); the Marriage Act 1949, s 5B (as amended by the Gender Recognition Act 2004, s 11, Sch 4).

9 The Employment Tribunal made a better (if not entirely successful) attempt at addressing discrimination in Ladele v London Borough of Islington, as did the High Court in Singh v Aberdare Girls' High School (see Case Notes at pages 122–123 and 126–127 respectively of this issue), although these cases were overtly founded upon discrimination legislation rather than placing reliance on the interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998 with particular reference to religious liberty.

10 See the Church of England Marriage Measure 2008.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed