Michael Black and John Morgan v Susanne Wilkinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 October 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Civil |
| Court | County Court |
IN THE SLOUGH COUNTY COURT
FOR TRIAL AT THE READING COUNTY
COURT
BEFORE RECORDER MOULDER
CLAIM NO 0UD02282
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL BLACK
JOHN MORGAN
- and -
Claimants
SUSANNE WILKINSON Defendant
APPROVED JUDGMENT
HEARING DATE 17 SEPTEMBER 2012
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN 18 OCTOBER 2012
1. This is a claim in tort for breach of statutory duty under regulation 20 of the Equality Act (Sexual
Orientation) Regulations 2007 in which the Claimants allege that contrary to Regulation 4 of the
said regulations the Defendant discriminated against them by refusing to provide them with a
double room at the Swiss bed‐and‐breakfast on 19 March 2010.
Background
2. The material facts in this case are as follows. The Claimants are a homosexual couple but are not
in a civil partnership. The Defendant runs a bed‐and‐breakfast business in Cookham in Berkshire.
The house has seven bedrooms of which one is occupied by the Defendant and her husband,
two are used for her children, a further room is kept for family and friends and three rooms are
let out to guests.
3. Michael Black, the First Claimant, contacted the Defendant by e‐mail on 11th March 2010 to
book a double room for 19 March 2010. By e‐mail in response the Defendant offered Mr Black
the Zürich room, a double room. Mr Black confirmed the reservation and sent the Defendant a
cheque for the £30 deposit.
4. On the evening of 19 March 2010 the Claimants arrived at the bed‐and‐breakfast and were met
by the Defendant in the driveway. The Defendant invited them into the house and explained
there was a problem as they had booked into the Zürich room which had a double bed. The
Defendant said that she did not like the idea of two men sharing a bed. The Defendant said she
had personal convictions against this and ,according to the Defendant, that as she was fully
booked she could not offer them 2 rooms for single occupancy. The Second Claimant said that in
that case they would go somewhere else. The First Claimant asked for the deposit back and the
deposit was returned by the Defendant.
5. After attending the engagement for which they travelled to Cookham, the Claimants drove
home to Huntingdon that evening rather than seek alternative accommodation for the night.
Summary of the legal issues
6. The Claimants’ case is that by virtue of regulation 4 (1) of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations 2007 (revoked with effect from 1 October 2010 by the Equality Act 2010 but not in
relation to acts occurring before that date) it was at the material time unlawful for a person
concerned with the provision of services to the public to discriminate against a person who
seeks to obtain those services on the grounds of that person's sexual orientation by refusing to
provide that person with those services (or services of the same or similar quality, in the same or
similar manner, or on the same or similar terms in each case which he would provide to the
public generally).
7. By virtue of regulation 4(2) (b) regulation 4 (1) applies to accommodation in a hotel, boarding
house or similar establishment.
8. The Claimants’ case is that by refusing to provide them with accommodation (and/or
accommodation of the same quality, in the same or similar manner and/or on the same or
similar terms in each case that she would provide accommodation to the public generally) the
Defendant unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation in
breach of the regulation.
9. The Claimants’ primary case is one of direct discrimination contrary to regulation 3 (1) in that, on
the grounds of their sexual orientation, the Defendant treated them less favourably than she
treats or would treat others by refusing them access to a double room.
10. The Claimants’ alternative case is that the Defendant subjected them to indirect discrimination
contrary to regulation 3 (3) in that the Defendant's policy of restricting access to the double
rooms to those who are "heterosexual and preferably married" amounted to a provision,
criterion or practice which she applied equally to persons not of the Claimants’ orientation, this
puts homosexual people at a disadvantage (as they could never be heterosexual or married), this
puts the Claimants at a disadvantage and this could not be justified.
11. In her Defence the Defendant states that she had been attempting to act in accordance with her
religious beliefs and in particular the belief that "monogamous heterosexual marriage is the
form of partnership uniquely intended for full sexual relations between persons" and that
homosexual sexual relations (as opposed to homosexual orientation) and heterosexual sexual
relations outside marriage are sinful.
12. The Defendant denies that regulation 4 applies. She relies on regulation 6 (1). She states that the
double bedroom is in the heart of the Defendant's home and the Defendant treats guests as if
they are members of the family. She provides a special degree of care and attention to the
guests staying in her home. Further or alternatively the refusal related to bedrooms in premises
which were occupied by the Defendant's own family and therefore it was not "a hotel, boarding
house or similar establishment" within the meaning of regulation 4 (2) (b).
13. The Defendant denies that there was any direct discrimination and denies that any
discrimination occurred on the basis of the sexual orientation of the Claimants. The Defendant
did not permit homosexual sexual behaviour in her home which is why any difference in
treatment occurred. Sexual behaviour is not a protected characteristic and is different from
sexual orientation.
14. The Defendant denies any indirect discrimination. The defence case is that because of her
religious belief she has "sought to restrict the sharing of the double rooms to heterosexual
preferably married couples" and the Defendant has turned away several unmarried heterosexual
couples from the outset where it was obvious that they were unmarried from the fact that they
only wanted use of the room during the day for sex. The practice of restricting the sharing of the
double rooms to heterosexual, preferably married couples did not put homosexual people at a
disadvantage because unmarried heterosexual persons were unable to share a double room and
therefore would be at a similar disadvantage.
15. Further or alternatively the matters could be reasonably justified by reference to matters other
than the Claimants' sexual orientation namely by reference to the Defendant's religious belief
and the need to vindicate her own Article 8 and Article 9 rights protected by the European
Convention on Human Rights incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
To continue reading
Request your trial