text
R, or r, is the eighteenth letter of the Latin alphabet, used in the modern English alphabet, the alphabets of other western European languages and others worldwide. Its name in English is ar (pronounced ), plural ars,"R", Oxford English Dictionary 2nd edition (1989); "ar", op. cit or in Ireland or . In some varieties of African-American Vernacular English, the name of the letter is pronounced as "arruh" (pronounced /ɑɹːə/). The letter is the eighth most common letter in English and the fourth-most common consonant (after , , and ). The letter is used to form the ending "-re", which is used in certain words such as centre in some varieties of English spelling, such as British English. Canadian English also uses the "-re" ending, unlike American English, where the ending is usually replaced by "-er" (center). This does not affect pronunciation. == Name == The name of the letter in Latin was (), following the pattern of other letters representing continuants, such as F, L, M, N and S. This name is preserved in French and many other languages. In Middle English, the name of the letter changed from to , following a pattern exhibited in many other words such as farm (compare French ferme) and star (compare German Stern). In Hiberno-English the letter is called or , somewhat similar to oar, ore, orr. The letter R is sometimes referred to as the (literally 'canine letter', often rendered in English as the dog's letter). This Latin term referred to the Latin R that was trilled to sound like a growling dog, a spoken style referred to as ('dog voice'). A good example of a trilled R is in the Spanish word for dog, perro. In William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, such a reference is made by Juliet's nurse in Act 2, scene 4, when she calls the letter R "the dog's name". The reference is also found in Ben Jonson's English Grammar. ==History== Egyptian Proto-Sinaitic Phoenician Resh Greek Rho Latin R D1 x40px x30px x40px x30px ===Antiquity=== The letter R is believed to derive ultimately from an image of a head, used in Semitic alphabets for the sound /r/ because the word for "head" was rêš (or similar) in most Semitic languages. The word became the name of the letter, as an example of acrophony. It developed into Greek 'Ρ' (rhô) and Latin R. The descending diagonal stroke develops as a graphic variant in some Western Greek alphabets (writing rho as 20px| ), but it was not adopted in most Old Italic alphabets; most Old Italic alphabets show variants of their rho between a "P" and a "D" shape, but without the Western Greek descending stroke. Indeed, the oldest known forms of the Latin alphabet itself of the 7th to 6th centuries BC, in the Duenos and the Forum inscription, still write r using the "P" shape of the letter. The Lapis Satricanus inscription shows the form of the Latin alphabet around 500 BC. Here, the rounded, closing Π shape of the p and the Ρ shape of the r have become difficult to distinguish. The descending stroke of the Latin letter R has fully developed by the 3rd century BC, as seen in the Tomb of the Scipios sarcophagus inscriptions of that era. From around 50 AD, the letter P would be written with its loop fully closed, assuming the shape formerly taken by R. ===Cursive=== thumb|18th-century example of use of r rotunda in English blackletter typography The minuscule (lowercase) form (r) developed through several variations on the capital form. Along with Latin minuscule writing in general, it developed ultimately from Roman cursive via the uncial script of Late Antiquity into the Carolingian minuscule of the 9th century. In handwriting, it was common not to close the bottom of the loop but continue into the leg, saving an extra pen stroke. The loop-leg stroke shortened into the simple arc used in the Carolingian minuscule and until today. A calligraphic minuscule r, known as r rotunda (ꝛ), was used in the sequence or, bending the shape of the r to accommodate the bulge of the o (as in oꝛ as opposed to or). Later, the same variant was also used where r followed other lower case letters with a rounded loop towards the right (such as b, h, p) and to write the geminate rr (as ꝛꝛ). Use of r rotunda was mostly tied to blackletter typefaces, and the glyph fell out of use along with blackletter fonts in English language contexts mostly by the 18th century. Insular script used a minuscule which retained two downward strokes, but which did not close the loop ("Insular r", ꞃ); this variant survives in the Gaelic type popular in Ireland until the mid-20th century (but now mostly limited to decorative purposes). ==Pronunciation and use== Pronunciations of Rr Languages in italics do not use the roman alphabet; the table refers to romanizations Language Dialect(s) Pronunciation (IPA) Environment Notes Albanian rr represents a trilled /r/ Arabic Most dialects North Mesopotamian, Judeo-Iraqi Egyptian Aragonese Word-initially Usually rr represents a trilled Asturian Word- initially Usually rr represents a trilled Basque Word-initially Usually rr represents a trilled Catalan Word-initially Usually Danish Archaic Dutch Most dialects Brabantish, Limburgish English Non-rhotic Before vowels silent After vowels Rhotic Before vowels ʵ After vowels Esperanto Faroese French Galician German Standard Before vowels After vowels Gutnish Haitian Hebrew Archaic Hopi Indonesian Standard Sumatran dialects Before vowels/consonants silent After vowels Irish After i; before e, i Italian Japanese Standard Leonese Malay Standard Before vowels/consonants silent After vowels Mandarin Standard Manx silent Māori Norwegian Most dialects Western and Southern dialects Tromsø Portuguese In certain environments In certain environments Scottish Gaelic Usually After i; before e, i Sicilian Spanish Some dialects After a vowel Most dialects Word-initially All dialects Usually Puerto Rican Word-initially Swedish Most dialects Southern dialects Turkish Venetian Most dialects Venice Vietnamese Northern dialect Most dialects , , , ===Non-English languages=== represents a rhotic consonant in many languages, as shown in the table below. Alveolar trill Listen some dialects of British English or in emphatic speech, standard Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, Galician, German in some dialects, Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Italian, Czech, Javanese, Lithuanian, Latvian, Latin, Norwegian mostly in the northwest, Polish, Portuguese (traditional form), Romanian, Russian, Scots, Slovak, Swedish, Sundanese, Ukrainian, Welsh; also Catalan, Spanish and Albanian Alveolar approximant Listen English (most varieties), Dutch in some Netherlandic dialects (in specific positions of words), Faroese, Sicilian Alveolar flap / Alveolar tap Listen Portuguese, Catalan, Spanish and Albanian , Turkish, Dutch, Italian, Venetian, Galician, Leonese, Norwegian, Irish, Māori Voiced retroflex fricative Listen Norwegian around Tromsø; Spanish used as an allophone of /r/ in some South American accents; Hopi used before vowels, as in raana, "toad", from Spanish rana; Hanyu Pinyin transliteration of Standard Chinese. Retroflex approximant Listen some English dialects (in the United States, South West England, and Dublin), Gutnish Retroflex flap Listen Norwegian when followed by , sometimes in Scottish English Uvular trill Listen German stage standard; some Dutch dialects (in Brabant and Limburg, and some city dialects in The Netherlands), Swedish in Southern Sweden, Norwegian in western and southern parts, Venetian only in Venice area. Voiced uvular fricative Listen North Mesopotamian Arabic, Judeo-Iraqi Arabic, German, Danish, French, standard European Portuguese , standard Brazilian Portuguese , Puerto Rican Spanish and 'r-' in western parts, Norwegian in western and southern parts. Other languages may use the letter in their alphabets (or Latin transliterations schemes) to represent rhotic consonants different from the alveolar trill. In Haitian Creole, it represents a sound so weak that it is often written interchangeably with , e.g. 'Kweyol' for 'Kreyol'. Brazilian Portuguese has a great number of allophones of such as , , , , , and , the latter three ones can be used only in certain contexts ( and as ; in the syllable coda, as an allophone of according to the European Portuguese norm and according to the Brazilian Portuguese norm). Usually at least two of them are present in a single dialect, such as Rio de Janeiro's , , and, for a few speakers, . ===Other systems=== The International Phonetic Alphabet uses several variations of the letter to represent the different rhotic consonants; represents the alveolar trill. ==Related characters== ===Descendants and related characters in the Latin alphabet=== * R with diacritics: Ŕ ŕ Ɍ ɍ Ř ř Ŗ ŗ Ṙ ṙ Ȑ ȑ Ȓ ȓ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ Ṟ ṟ Ꞧ ꞧ Ɽ ɽ R̃ r̃ ᵲ ꭨ ᵳ ᶉ * International Phonetic Alphabet-specific symbols related to R: ʶ ˞ ʴ * IPA superscript letters: 𐞦 𐞧 𐞨 𐞩 𐞪 * Obsolete and nonstandard symbols in the International Phonetic Alphabet: ɼ ɿ * Uralic Phonetic Alphabet-specific symbols related to R: ** ** ** ** * Teuthonista phonetic transcription-specific symbols related to R: ** ** * Anthropos phonetic transcription: ** ** ** * Otto Bremer's phonetic transcription: ** ** ** * 𝼨 : R with mid-height left hook was used by the British and Foreign Bible Society in the early 20th century for romanization of the Malayalam language. * ⱹ : Turned r with tail is used in the Swedish Dialect Alphabet * Other variations of R used for phonetic transcription: 𝼕 𝼖 ===Calligraphic variants in the Latin alphabet=== * Ꝛ ꝛ : R rotunda * Ꞃ ꞃ : "Insular" R (Gaelic type) * ᫍ : Combining insular r was used in the Ormulum ===Ancestors and siblings in other alphabets=== * 𐤓 : Semitic letter Resh, from which the following letters derive ** Ρ ρ : Greek letter Rho, from which the following letters derive *** 𐌓 : Old Italic letter R, the ancestor of modern Latin R **** ᚱ : Runic letter Raido *** Р р : Cyrillic letter Er *** 𐍂 : Gothic letter Reda ===Abbreviations, signs and symbols=== * ℟ : symbol for "response" in liturgy * : Medical prescription Rx * ® : Registered trademark symbol * ₹ : Indian rupee sign ==Encoding== : 1 ==See also== * Guttural R ==References== ==External links== * * * Category:ISO basic Latin letters
thumb|Front facade of the R & G Financial Corporation headquarters. The R & G Financial Corporation (commonly known as RG Financial or R-G Financial) was a financial holding company located in San Juan, Puerto Rico. On April 30, 2010, its bank failed and its deposits and assets were seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Its deposits and assets were subsequently sold to Scotiabank. On May 14, R & G Financial Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. RG used to offer a full range of financial services in Puerto Rico and the State of Florida through its wholly owned subsidiaries. Its main subsidiaries were RG Premier Bank, a business and consumer financial services company offering banking services, trust and brokerage services, and various types of loans, and RG Mortgage, which was one of the largest mortgage lenders in the island. Its headquarters were located at 290 Jesus T. Pinero Avenue in Hato Rey, San Juan. ==Summary== RG Financial Corp's chief assets and sources of income are its commercial loans (which mainly consist of commercial real estate loans and construction loans), consumer loans (which mainly consist of auto loans, personal loans and credit card loans), and residential mortgage loans. RG Financial offers banking services through a network of 66 branches (2005) between two of its subsidiaries, the largest being RG Premier Bank in Puerto Rico and the second being RG Crown Bank in the Orlando, Tampa and St. Petersburg cities of Florida. In an effort to compete with larger banks within Puerto Rico and Florida, RG Financial has acquired various banking and lending institutions in order to expand to new markets and improve its services in existing ones. On June 29, 1993, it acquired Caribbean Federal Savings Bank of Puerto Rico, followed by the Fajardo Federal Savings Bank on August 5, 1998, then Continental Capital Corp. on October 7, 1999, and finally Crown Group, Inc. on June 7, 2002. Additionally, RG Financial acquired various other assets and rights from other financial companies, such as 18 bank branches from Wachovia Corporation in 2004, and mortgage servicing rights from Banco Santander in 1998. By 2004, the company had over $10.20 billion in assets and approximately 2,404 employees. ==Competitors (in Puerto Rico)== * Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria * Banco Popular de Puerto Rico * Banco Santander * Doral Bank * EuroBancshares * FirstBank * Oriental Financial Group, Inc. * Scotiabank * Westernbank ==References== Category:Scotiabank Category:Banks of Puerto Rico Category:Companies based in San Juan, Puerto Rico Category:Companies that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2010 Category:Banks established in 1966 Category:Banks disestablished in 2010 Category:Bank failures in the United States Category:Defunct companies of Puerto Rico Category:1966 establishments in Puerto Rico Category:2010 disestablishments in Puerto Rico
Richard Beck (1827-1866) and Joseph Beck FRAS, FRMS (June 1828-18 April 1891) (nephews of J. J. Lister) formed the optical manufacturing firm of R and J Beck in 1843, based at 69 Mortimer Street, London,. James Smith worked with the company under the name of Smith and Beck, renamed Smith, Beck and Beck in 1854 but reverting to R and J Beck when Smith retired in 1865. Smith is credited with helping to raise the status of the use of microscopes within scientific research. == Exhibitions and trades shows == * 1851 Great Exhibition == Notable equipment == Camera lenses of R and J Beck are known as Beck Ensign, and the Frena camera was developed in the 1890s, using celluloid films. A catalogue of work by R & J Beck from 1900 has been digitised as part of the Internet Archive which features the terms of business and pricing from 1900, simplex microscopes, No. 10 London Microscope, No. 22 London Microscope, No. 29 London Microscope, Beck Pathological Microscope, No. 3201 Massive Microscope, Radial Research Microscope, Angular Model Microscope, Beck Combined Binocular and Monocular Microscope, Baby London Microscope, No.3755 Portable Microscope, Pathological Microscope, Binomax magnifier, Greenough Binocular Microscope, Crescent Dissecting Microscope, Cornex Dissecting Microscope, Beck Ultra Violet Microscope made for J. E. Barnard F.R.S., Beck Object Glasses, Eyepieces, Beck-Chapman Opaque Illuminator, Photomigraphic Cameras, Optical Benches, Microtomes, University Micro-projector and Folding Pocket Magnifiers. == Museums and Collections holding R and J Beck equipment == * Coats Observatory, Paisley, Scotland (contains a large collection of scientific and astronomical materials, including equipment by R and J Beck) * National Museums of Scotland (microscopes by R and J Beck) * National Science and Media Museum, Bradford, England (Beck field cameras ) * Science Museum, London (compound molecular microscope, acquired 2012, periscope for trench use ) * Museum of Technology, Lincolnshire (microscopes) * Museum of the History of Science, Oxford (microscopes) * Warren Anatomical Museum, Harvard (classroom demonstration microscopes) * Huntarian Museum, Glasgow, Scotland (microscopes) * Surgeons' Hall Museum, Edinburgh, Scotland (microscope) * Scientific Instrument Collection, Macleay Museum, Sydney University (vertical illuminator) * London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Archives, London (crescent dissecting microscope, c.1900) == Slideshow: Images of R and J Beck equipment == From the Coats Observatory collection: File:Binocular Microscope by R&J; Beck.jpg File:Microscope Accessories by R&J; Beck.jpg File:Monocular microscope by R&J; Beck.jpg == References == Category:Photography equipment Category:Optics manufacturing companies Category:Microscopes
R & J Templeton Ltd was founded in 1880 by Robert Templeton.Retailing Revolution, Peter Mathias (c) Allied Suppliers Ltd, 1967 R & J Templeton Ltd styled themselves as "Tea Merchants and Cash Grocers". By 1910 the company had built a network of 50 shops (40 of which were in Glasgow), usually they rented corner sites in poor districts. Their key grocery products were "dry goods" - tea, cereals, flour, jams and confectionery. ==Acquisition == The company was acquired by Jurgens in 1919 through Home and Colonial Stores Glasgow subsidiary Shepherd's Dairies for £132,045 eventually becoming part of the Allied Suppliers network. ==References== Category:Scottish brands Category:Defunct retail companies of the United Kingdom
Richard and Robert Dickson (usually simply referred to as R & R Dickson) were brothers, acting as architects in Scotland in the early and mid-19th century. Whilst most of their work is typified by remote country houses they are best known for their magnificent spire on the Tron Kirk in the heart of Edinburgh on the Royal Mile.Buildings of Scotland :Edinburgh by Gifford McWilliam and Walker ==Life== They were the sons of John Dickson (1766–1828), an Edinburgh builder. Their mother was Mary Crichton, sister to Richard Crichton (1771–1817), an Edinburgh architect, and they appear to have trained under him, taking over his office upon his death.Dictionary of Scottish Architects: Dickson Their offices were at 9 Blenheim Place near the top of Leith Walk a handsome and unusual building forming part of a terrace designed by Playfair and built by their own father in 1824. It is possible that the unit was in lieu of payment for this stylish row, characterised by its being the only flat roofed Georgian terraced "bungalows" (with basement for servants) in Edinburgh. They designed in a variety of styles from Gothic to Classical. There buildings are both sound and attractive and most are now listed buildings. Richard (1792–1857) was the older of the two. He is buried in Old Calton Cemetery with his parents. ==Works== SeeBuildings of Scotland : Edinburgh by Gifford McWilliam and Walker thumb|Cockpen Parish Church, 1817 thumb|Kilconquhar Parish Church, 1819 thumb|R & R Dickson's office at Blenheim Place, Edinburgh * Abercairney House, Crieff (1817) completing Richard Crichton's job on his death * Cockpen Parish Church (1817) again completing Richard Crichton's design on his death * Kilconquhar Parish Church (1819) a slightly enlarged version of the Cockpen design * Redesign of Cortachy Castle (1820) adding crenellations as were the fashion of the day * Coul House, Contin (1820) * Whitehaugh, Newcastleton (1822) * West Lodge Balbirnie House (1824) note- they probably worked on the main house during their apprenticeship under Richard Crichton * The large tenement at Gardners Crescent/ Morrison Street in Edinburgh (1826) * Classical crescent, 1-25 Gardners Crescent (1826) * Church at Gardners Crescent (1827) (demolished) * Inchrye Lodge, Denmylne Castle near Newburgh, Fife (1827) * Leith Town Hall (1827) now Leith Police Station * The impressive spire on the Tron Kirk on the Royal Mile (1828) rebuilt in a Wren style following the Great Fire of Edinburgh of 1824 in which the original spire was destroyed * Muirhouse in rural north-west Edinburgh (1830) now encompassed by the city * Bathgate Academy (1831) * Veterinary College, Clyde Street, Edinburgh (1833) closed 1916 to move to Summerhall. Building demolished to build a cinema c.1930 and then cleared for St Andrew Square Bus Station * West lodge, Blair Drummond (1836) note- the brothers probably worked on the main house (designed by Richard Crichton) during their apprenticeship * St James Episcopal Church, Muthill (1836) * Collessie Parish Church (1838) * Estate buildings, Arbuthnott House, Kincardineshire (1839) * Dr Bell's School, Great Junction Street, Leith (1839) * Dunimarle Castle (1839) * Blair Cottages, Blair Atholl (1840) * Collessie School and schoolmaster's house (1846) * Kinellan House, Murrayfield, Edinburgh (1846) probably for the MacKenzies of Kinellan in Ross and Cromarty * Duchess of Atholl's Girls School, Dunkeld (1853) * Kincardine School, Kincardine-in-Menteith, Perthshire (1855) * Atholl Arms Hotel, Blair Atholl (1856) * Garryside Village, Blair Atholl (1856) * Duke of Atholl's School, Logierait (1863) ==References== * A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, H M Colvin Category:Architecture firms of Scotland Category:Service companies of Scotland Category:Architects from Edinburgh
thumb|"M", one of R&R; Studios first projects, was installed in 1996 in celebration of the first 100 years of Miami. thumb|"The Living Room" is a 42’ tall unfinished home turned inside out that performs as a social sculpture within the Miami Design District. thumb|"The Home We Share" art-works trio inaugurates a new understanding of architecture as public art and a conception of outdoor art as social sculptures. R&R; Studios is a Miami-based multidisciplinary design practice that weaves together art, architecture, and the city. Architects and artists Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt founded R&R; Studios with the goal of exploring art and design through cultural projects. == Contribution to Architecture and Art == Among their works are the "M," a 45' public artwork in Downtown Miami; "The Living Room" a 42' tall inside-out unfinished home; "Besame Mucho," a "Super-billboard" constructed for the Coachella Music and Arts Festival; and "The Home We Share" at Princeton University, a collection of three social sculptures known as "Flower Fields Forever," "Forget Me Not," and "Dreaming Room". R&R; Studios' artworks, among others, belong to the permanent public collections of the Museum of Modern Art in Buenos Aires, Princeton University Art Museum, Perez Art Museum Miami, the Archives d'Architecture Moderne, in Brussels and private collections around the world. R&R; Studios has received Awards of Excellence from the American Institute of Architects for their Intermodel Station Façade in Warwick, Rhode Island, for the Museum of Art in Ft. Lauderdale, and for the Toftegards Plads Syd in Copenhagen, Denmark. Their work was selected among the best Public Art in 2007 and 2013 by Americans for the Arts. Their work has been published in over 350 publications worldwide, and several books present their work, including an ongoing series titled "Incomplete Works" featuring "M', "The Living Room", and "Museum Works". == Biography == The founders of the studio, Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt, were born in Argentina and have known one another since the age of twelve. Behar and Marquardt received their diplomas in architecture together from the Universidad Nacional de Rosario in Argentina. Behar also completed postgraduate study at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies in New York City, was a visiting artist at the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles, and received a visiting artist fellowship from the American Academy in Rome. They've taught, lectured, and served as visiting critics at major universities, including Harvard GSD, Yale University, Cornell University, Universita IUAV di Venezia, Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausanne, and the University of Maryland. Behar and Marquardt both currently teach at the University of Miami School of Architecture and have earned the moniker "Architects of Hope" for their contributions to art and architecture. thumb|"Besame Mucho", a hundred thousand flower project, creates an instant square at the Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival 2016. == Projects == Name Country State City The Living Room United States of America Florida Miami Design District A Midsummer Night's Dream United States of America Florida Coral Gables I Love You (Concept) United States of America Florida Miami Design District Supernova United States of America California Indio Museum of Art Fort Lauderdale United States of America Florida Ft. Lauderdale Roosevelt Station Plaza and Sculpture United States of America Washington Seattle All Together Now United States of America Colorado Denver Flowers & Flowers United States of America Florida Miami Beach Peace & Love United States of America Florida Parkland The Peace Project United States of America Colorado Denver Valby Square and Town Center Denmark Copenhagen M United States of America Florida Miami Opa-Locka Open Room United States of America Florida Opa-Locka Beauty for All (Concept) United States of America Florida Miami Flower Power Flag United States of America Florida Miami Biblioteca Central Argentina Rosario Plaza Isreal Argentina Buenos Aires Nordhavnen Sustainable City Denmark Copenhagen The Star of Miami United States of America Florida Miami Rhode Island Intermodal Station United States of America Rhode Island Warwick Besame Mucho United States of America California Indio Darsena Norte (Concept) Argentina Buenos Aires Oracabessa Jamaica Oracabessa The Absent City United States of America Winsconsin Madison Cruaute Et Utopie Belgium Brussels A Place in the World United States of America Florida Miami Coquina Pool United States of America Florida Rosemary Beach I Love You, A Travelling Square United States of America Virginia Alexandria The Sky Above Us United States of America Florida Miami Church of Guadalupe United States of America Indiana Milford University of Miami Entrance Plaza United States of America Florida Coral Gables Instant Happiness Argentina Buenos Aires Building Blocks United States of America Puerto Rico San Juan Los Pasos Perdidos Belgium Brussels Bicentennial Monument and Square Mexico Mexico City The Dreaming Room United States of America New Jersey Princeton Flower Fields Forever United States of America New Jersey Princeton Forget Me Not United States of America New Jersey Princeton == Exhibitions == * Time of Friendship. Museum of Art. Fort Lauderdale. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. * The Absent City. Museum of Contemporary Art. Madison, Wisconsin. (Individual Exhibition). * The Peace Project. Museum of Contemporary Art Denver, Colorado. (Individual Exhibition). * Centre International pour la Ville, l’Architecture et le Paysage. Brussels, Belgium. == Publications == * Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt. R&R; Studios. The Little Book. Miami, Florida: 2015. * Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt. R&R; Studios. R&R; Alphabet. Miami, Florida: 2015. * Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt. R&R; Studios. The Living Room. Miami, Florida: 2013. * Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt. R&R; Studios. Museum Works. Miami, Florida: 2013. * Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt. R&R; Studios. M. Miami, Florida: 2011. * Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt. R&R; Studios. The Peace Project. Miami, Florida: 2007. * Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt. R&R; Studios. Here Comes the Sun. Miami, Florida: 2003. * Roberto Behar The Architecture of Politics: 1910–1940. Miami, Florida: 1995. == References == == External links == *Official website Category:Studios in the United States
R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v SS for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review. ==Facts== Alconbury Developments Ltd and others challenged (1) the Minister’s power to determine planning appeals, rather than an inspector, (2) a Minister’s power to approve compulsory purchase orders under the Highway Act 1980, and (3) a new rail link approved under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The claimants argued that (1) the decisions affected their civil rights, (2) under the ECHR art 6(1) those questions should be decided by an independent and impartial tribunal, with court review, not a Minister, (3) there was insufficient judicial control for ECHR art 6(1) because the statutory appeals did not allow for a rehearing on the merits. ==Judgment== The House of Lords held that, although civil rights were affected and there should be independent oversight, ECHR art 6(1) did not require a court to rehear the merits of a decision. Statutory appeals to the High Court were sufficient review of legality. Lord Slynn said proportionality should be recognised as a general principle of English law: Lord Nolan said this: Lord Hoffmann said the following: Lord Clyde said this: ==See also== *United Kingdom constitutional law ==Notes== ==References== * Category:United Kingdom constitutional case law
R. (on the application of Amicus) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] EWHC 860 (Admin) is a UK labour law case, where a number of trade unions challenged the government's new implementation of EU Directive 2000/78/EC in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 ==Facts== Various unions, including Amicus, challenged the government's implementation of sexuality discrimination law. In particular it was asked whether the exceptions created for churches and religious groups, being allowed to exclude gay people from employment was legitimate (r.7(3)). ==Judgment== Richards J held that the implementation was adequate, though it was stressed that the exceptions would be tightly construed. First, the genuine occupational requirements could apply where the employers were not satisfied an applicant met its requirements, as well as where they did not in fact. Second, it was rejected that a church group under r 7(3) could dismiss a gay cleaner, dismiss a science teacher for being a lesbian or not employ a gay person at a bookshop with holy scripts, even though people may have strong convictions. Nor could a Muslim group refuse a librarian post to someone appearing to be gay. It was ‘clear from the Parliamentary material that the exception was intended to be very narrow; and… is on its proper construction, very narrow.’ That so, because it is a derogation from the equal treatment principle. Third, there is a difference between a religious organisation, such as a faith school where there can be no discrimination, and ‘for the purposes of an organised religion’ where there can. Fourth, ‘so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion’ would be an objective rather than a subjective test under r 7(3)(b)(ii). ==See also== *UK employment discrimination law *UK labour law ==Notes== Category:United Kingdom labour case law Category:Anti- discrimination case law in the United Kingdom Category:High Court of Justice cases Category:United Kingdom trade union case law Category:2004 in United Kingdom case law Category:2004 in LGBT history Category:United Kingdom LGBT rights case law
R (Ann Marie Rogers) v Swindon Primary Care Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 392 is a UK enterprise law case, concerning health care in the UK. ==Facts== Ms Rogers claimed that she should be treated with Herceptin for her breast cancer, although it was not yet licensed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dr Cole, her consultant, was turned down by Swindon Primary Care Trust for the treatment. She could only afford two doses herself. The PCT would only fund if her case was ‘exceptional’ but after a review it decided her case was not, because all women with stage 1 breast cancer were in the same position as Ms Rogers. She brought judicial review, arguing the PCT had acted irrationally. Bean J dismissed Ms Rogers' appeal for judicial review. ==Judgment== The Court of Appeal held the ‘exceptionality’ review had been meaningless, and the decision was irrational. Sir Anthony Clarke MR said the following: ==See also== *United Kingdom enterprise law ==Notes== ==References== * Category:United Kingdom enterprise case law
R (B) v Cambridge Health Authority [1995] EWCA Civ 43 is a UK judicial review and enterprise law case, concerning health care in the UK. ==Facts== The parents of a child named Jaymee Bowen claimed that she should receive chemotherapy and a second bone marrow transplant for their 10 year old’s acute myeloid leukaemia. Consultants at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, and Royal Marsden Hospital in London thought it would not succeed. Treatment in the United States would have been far too expensive. One doctor in Hammersmith would have treated her for £75,000. The doctors believed it would be ineffective and inappropriate. ==Judgment== ===High Court=== Laws J held the doctors should have to ‘do more than toll the bell of tight resources. They must explain the priorities that have led them to decline to fund the treatment.’ ===Court of Appeal=== Sir Thomas Bingham MR held, the same day, the Health Authority had acted rationally and fairly and intervention would be misguided. ‘I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient, or a patient's family, sought would be provided if doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it cost, particularly when a life was potentially at stake. It would however, in my view, be shutting one's eyes to the real world if the court were to proceed on the basis that we do live in such a world. It is common knowledge that health authorities of all kinds are constantly pressed to make ends meet. They cannot pay their nurses as much as they would like; they cannot provide all the treatments they would like; they cannot purchase all the extremely expensive medical equipment they would like; they cannot carry out all the research they would like; they cannot build all the hospitals and specialist units they would like. Difficult and agonising judgments have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgment which the court can make. In my judgment, it is not something that a health authority such as this Authority can be fairly criticised for not advancing before the court.’ ==Significance== After the Court of Appeal judgment, the Sun said the child was ‘Condemned by Bank Balance’ and the Daily Mail said the child was ‘Sentenced to Death’. An anonymous private donor paid for treatment. The consultant who had agreed, changed tack, did not provide a second bone marrow transplant, and did an experimental treatment called donor lymphocyte infusion. Jaymee died after a few months. The funeral of Jaymee Bowen was held on 28 May 1996. That evening Channel 4 cancelled its scheduled late-night programmes to enable the celebrated TV discussion After Dark to debate the issues of the case, with among others Julian Tudor Hart, Martin Israel and the NHS Director of Public Health who had turned down Jaymee's family when they asked for further treatment.Production company database, accessed 30 May 2022 ==See also== *United Kingdom enterprise law ==Notes== ==References== * Category:United Kingdom enterprise case law
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 3) [2018] UKSC 3 is a 2018 legal case concerning the admissibility of a leaked Wikileaks cable as evidence in a dispute over the legality of a marine protected area in the British Indian Ocean Territory. ==References== ==External links== *(Bancoult No 3) Category:Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute Category:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases
R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, SS for Education and SkillsEuropean Court of Justice 15 March 2005, Case C-209/03, , Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union. ==Facts== Danny Bidar, was French, and lived with his grandmother in the UK from August 1998, with his mother, who had cancer and died. He attended the local secondary school, and began reading UCL economics in September 2001. He received assistance with tuition fees (following Gravier v City of Liège), but his application for a student loan was refused on the ground that he did not have ‘settled’ status. AG Geelhoed referred to concerns of "benefit tourism". Opinion of Mr Advocate General Geelhoed, at [66] ==Judgment== The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice held that Bidar could not be denied the student loan on the basis that he did not have settled status. Bidar was an EU citizen, lawfully resident under TFEU art 21, in conjunction with the Persons of Independent Means Directive 90/364 (now the Citizens Rights Directive article 7(1)(b)). He satisfied those conditions. He was entitled under TFEU art 18 to social assistance benefits, and these included maintenance costs through subsidised loans or grants. Student assistance fell within the treaty scope. The English rules were indirect discrimination. It was legitimate for a member state to grant assistance only to those with a degree of integration. The three year rule was compatible with EU law, but the requirement to have settled status was not, because it was impossible for a student from another member state to obtain it. ==See also== *European Union law ==Notes== ==References== * Category:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
was a 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The court held that as inter partes proceedings created a lis between the parties (per Lewes), equal treatment (per Al Rawi) meant that ex parte evidence in general could not be adduced. ==Facts== Two army officers, B and D had been passing information from the COBRA committee to British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (B Sky B) in the person of Sam Kiley. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (the Commissioner) had made an inter partes application for a production order, to the circuit judge. Certain evidence was offered ex parte over the objections of B Sky B. The judge granted the order, and B Sky B applied to the Administrative Court for a judicial review. The Administrative Court quashed the production order ([2011] EWHC 3451 (Admin)). Proceedings against the officers were dropped, but because of the importance of the legal argument, the Commissioner appealed. ==Judgment== In the Supreme Court, arguments were heard from the parties to the case. Lord Toulson, with whom the other members agreed, said that the general power of a magistrate to issue a search warrant on ex parte application of a police officer, given reasonable belief that an indictable offence had taken place and that there was material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation on the premises, section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 mean that journalistic material was classed as "special procedural material" and did not fall under the general power. Application had been made under both the general and the "special material" sets of access conditions, and only the "special material" set was applicable. Special material, fell under section 9 and Schedule 1, and the application consequently had to be made inter partes and to a circuit judge. The issue was whether the court might have regard evidence given by the applicant but not disclosed to the respondent. The principle in Al Rawi that, as a general rule, a respondent should have access to evidence on which the case was based applied to criminal and civil trials, did not extend to applications to obtain evidence from a third party whose substantive legal rights were not involved. However, since the hearing was inter partes a discrete, substantive legal issue arose. Equal treatment meant that the crown court judge should not have taken into account the ex parte evidence. Therefore the Divisional Court was correct to quash the order, and the appeal was dismissed. ==Solicitors== Directorate of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police; Goodman Derrick LLP ==References== * UKSCblog * Procedure for seeking disclosure of journalistic material, The Times, 17 March 2014 * Supreme Court press summary *Official text of the judgment (UKSC website) Category:2014 in United Kingdom case law Category:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases Category:Sky Group Category:History of the Metropolitan Police
Justice Sopinka wrote for a unanimous court in this appeal from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on a case in which a Criminal Code section 486 publication ban was overturned by the trial judge, Justice Feehan, after he had found the primary witnesses for both sides of a sexual assault trial to be unreliable. Feehan J. considered as policy reasons in favour of lifting the publication ban that:canlii.org: "R. v. Adams, (1995) 4 SCR 707, 1995 CanLII 56 (SCC)" The Crown applied for leave to appeal directly to the Court from the order of the trial judge, pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26. Mootness was raised by the respondent, and discarded by the court; In any event, even if the appeal were moot it would exercise discretion to hear the appeal. Jurisdiction of this issue was confirmed, and the Supreme Court reinstated the publication ban. Sopinka quoted approvingly Justice Lamer in Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General): ==References== Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases Category:Canadian constitutional case law Category:1995 in Canadian case law Category:Publication bans in Canadian case law
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37 was heard by the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords on 26 May 2005 before Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, and Lord Carswell. This civil action involved two litigants - Annette Carson and Joanne Reynolds, which was on appeal from the Supreme Court and was a UK labour law and Human Rights Act 1998 case on "Right to property" under Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) and Article 14 of the convention (Prohibition of Discrimination. In Reynolds's case, there was also Article 8 - the right to respect for "private and family life" to consider. == Background == Carson relocated from the UK to South Africa in 1989 for work purposes, and continued paying her National Insurance Contributions (NICs) to ensure that on retirement she would be eligible for the full UK State Pension. She started drawing her UK state pension in September 2000, and then she realised that the amount she received would not be increased each year in line with her peers in the UK, and her pension was being "frozen" at the level at which she first started receiving it. Carson contended that she was being discriminated against with regard to deprivation of the annual inflationary increase to her UK State Pension because she had relocated to South Africa para 9. In addition, Carson contended that the failure of the UK Government to pay the annual inflationary increase to the UK State Pension in some countries but not others contravened the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and that she and many others were being discriminated against. She had found that the annual increase to the UK State Pension is payable in countries like the UK, the European Economic Area (EEA) and a number of disparate countries (the United States, for example), whilst not being payable in predominantly Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Carson claimed that under Article 1 her state pension, or alternatively its uprating, are "pecuniary rights", and therefore “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 14. In her original case, Justice Burnton had found in favour of the UK Government, citing that the judiciary should not override legislative UK government policy. This was upheld in her appeal to the Supreme Court. Reynolds was born on 9 November 1976. When she left school she began work and continued to work until she was made redundant on 12 October 2000. Whilst she was working she paid National Insurance Contributions. On 24 October 2000 she applied for Jobseeker's Allowance and it was paid with effect from that date. There are two different types of Jobseeker's Allowance - “JSA(C)” which is based on National Insurance Contributions paid over a prescribed minimum period and is not means-tested - the other “JSA(IB)” is income-based and a Means-tested benefit. Reynolds was paid the lesser of the two amounts and therefore was taking civil action against the UK Government saying that the UK Government's action was incompatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the convention; and under Article 14 of the convention she claimed she was being discriminated against because of her age; and under Article 8 of the ECHR (respect for her private life and her home); and finally her right not to be subjected to degrading treatment under Article 3 of ECHR (the prohibition of torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"). == Judgment == === Carson's appeal === thumb|right|Lord Hoffman, one of the Appellate Committee Lords of Appeal Lord Hoffman stated that Carson's case was typical of over 400,000 United Kingdom pensioners living abroad in countries which do not have reciprocal treaty arrangements under which annual cost of living increases are payable. Arrangements exist for countries within the European Economic Area (which is made up on European Union countries, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein) and a number of other countries such as the United States ("treaty countries"). However, there are no such treaties with South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many other countries. para 6 Carson complained that she was being unfairly treated, since she had paid the same National Insurance] Contributions as a United Kingdom resident and therefore she should receive the same pension. She is supported by associations of expatriate pensioners in South Africa and elsewhere. Whilst the case had generated a good deal of passion. para 7, Lord Hoffman stated that: :"The sense of grievance may be understandable but it is not justified. There is nothing unfair or irrational regarding the different treatment of people living abroad". para 8 Lord Hoffman agreed that there was no doubt that Carson was being treated differently compared to a pensioner who has the same contribution record but lived in the United Kingdom or a treaty country, but that in and of itself is not enough to amount to discrimination. para 14 Carson agreed that she could have no complaint if the United Kingdom had rigorously applied the principle that the UK state pension is for UK residents only and not payable to UK pensioners who had moved abroad, or who had, like her, relocated for work purposes. para 19. Lord Hoffman stated that it was unnecessary for the UK Government to try to justify the sums paid since it distracted attention from the main argument. para 26 Lord Hoffman dismissed Carson's appeal. para 34 In Lord Rodger's opinion, the fact that Carson gets less by way of pension does not constitute unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14. para 44 He dismissed Carson's appeal. Lord Walker stated that he could understand Carson's dissatisfaction at this state of affairs, but, in his opinion, she was not misled concerning what her entitlement would be. para 71 He believed that this was an issue of macro-economic policy which was within the responsibility of the UK government para 80, and therefore he dismissed Carson's appeal. para 80 In Lord Nicholls's opinion, Carson's complaint would need to be specifically covered as a Convention right in Article 14 of the convention (Prohibition of Discrimination) and on a ground stated in article 14. If this was true, then does Carson's difference in treatment, i.e. alleged discrimination stand up to scrutiny? Sometimes, where the position is not so clear, a different approach is called for, in which case the court's scrutiny may best be directed at considering whether the differentiation has a legitimate aim and whether the means chosen to achieve the aim is appropriate and not disproportionate in its adverse impact. para 3 Lord Nicholls had decided this was not the case and dismissed Carson's appeal. para 1 Lord Carswell had a dissenting opinion. Whilst it had been made clear in the Supreme Court that as far as UK law is concerned the difference in the way different cohorts of pensioners are treated is in accordance with the law, Carson and her fellow "frozen" pensioners can only hope that their appeals to logic and a sense of fair play will eventually prevail, contrary to their experience to date. para 93 Lord Carswell considered the impact of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"), as brought into play by the Human Rights Act 1998 and whether it was unlawful for the Government to operate legislation which has such an effect, para 93 and Carson had been discriminated against. The UK Government maintained that her case could not be compared to other, similar cases, and therefore she had failed to demonstrate discrimination. para 96 Lord Carswell stated that other judgments had missed the fact that Carson's financial position cannot be directly compared with those of pensioners either in the United Kingdom or in other countries, since exchange rates, inflation rates and the cost of living vary between these countries, therefore her case could not be directly compared with theirs and that accordingly she had not been discriminated against. para 96 He stated that: :"A broader approach might more readily yield a serviceable answer which corresponds with one's instincts for justice". para 97 Lord Carswell stated that Carson and other pensioners who reside in countries in which their pensions are not uprated are unquestionably treated differently, to their disadvantage, by reason of their residence in those countries. It is a fallacy to use variation in exchange rates or the relative cost of living in different countries when comparing Carson, and other "frozen" pensioners compared with pensioners residing in the United Kingdom or in countries where pensions are uprated. That makes little sense. If some of them are not paid pensions at the same rate as others then that would, in his opinion, constitute discrimination for the purposes of Article 14. para 98 If the UK Government had submitted reasons of economic or state policy to justify the difference in treatment, then Lord Carswell would yield to its decision-making power in those fields. It has not done so. On the contrary, the reasons for the policy lie wholly in the cost of uprating. It is stated in paragraph 11 of the memorandum by the Department of Social Security (DSS) memorandum to the House of Commons Social Security Committee in the session 1996-7: :"Agreeing to additional expenditure on pensions paid overseas would be incompatible with the government's policy of containing the long term cost of the social security system to ensure that it remains affordable". The UK state pension was becoming too expensive to continue paying at the "full rate" to everyone who had paid into the social security system, so the UK Government had to find some means of keeping down the cost, and in so doing, deprived one cohort of pensioners from receiving the annual uprating. para 99 However, Lord Carswell stated, once the UK Government started uprating the UK state pension for some pensioners living abroad, then there can be no justification for paying some and not others and less than their peers in the UK. para 100 Lord Carswell therefore allowed the appeal and declared that regulation 3 of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/910) is unlawful. para 104 === Reynolds's appeal === Lord Hoffman stated that the key issue was whether the UK government had the right to deal with Job Seekers who were under 25 in a different way to those who were over the age of 25. paras 36 & 3' Reynolds contended that Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support should be viewed in the same way, since both of them were determined on need, and were not related to lost earnings. With regard to Job Seekers Allowance, rather than the under 25/over 25 age demarcation, Reynolds contended that the legislation would be fairer if the distinction was between householder (of which Reynolds was one) and non-householders, since the expenses of a householder were much higher than those for a non-householder. para 38 The UK government confirmed that initially, the Job Seekers Allowance did have the householder/non-householder split, but this had been substituted with an age qualification instead. para 39 Lord Hoffman stated that, in terms of the Job Seekers Allowance, a line had to be drawn somewhere, and that the UK Government had determined that this line should be an applicant's 25th birthday, even though an applicant's expenses do not change the day that they turned 25. Lord Hoffman therefore dismissed Reynolds's appeal. para 41 In Lord Rodger's opinion, Reynolds felt that she was discriminated against on the grounds of age, but that the UK government treated the under 25 cohort of Job Seekers Allowance recipients as being in a different class since they will be receiving less, and therefore will have lower costs, and that by paying a lower amount, the UK government was encouraging them to live with others, rather than on their own, in which case there are many costs that could be shared, para 45 and therefore there was no unlawful discrimination under Article 14. He dismissed Reynolds's Appeal. Lord Walker reviewed the details as to Reynolds's alleged discrimination. para8 81-84 He then reviewed these circumstances against case law as it pertained to Reynolds and he then set out the five reasons that the UK government believed that there was no such age discrimination para 86 \- People in the 18-24 age group earn less than those 25 and over; the majority of the "under 25's" do not live on their own, so their cost base is lower; the payment of lower amounts to the "under 25's" discourages them from living independently; there are other social welfare benefits that can be given to those who can prove financial hardship and, the UK government needs simple rules for good administration - the age distinction was easier to apply than those between householder and non-householder. Lord Walker stated that in Asmundsson v Iceland, paras 89 & 90 there was case law such as to support the distinction between those under 25 and those "25 and over". para 86 It was for the UK Parliament, and not the judiciary, to decide where to draw the demarcation line, and they had decided that is should be done based on age. para 88 Lord Walker therefore dismissed Reynolds's appeal, saying that demarcation lines needed to be "bright lines", and that it was the role of Government to draw them (as the United States Supreme Court had done in the Margia case, para 91 and he therefore dismissed Reynolds's appeal. Lord Nicholls also dismissed Reynolds's appeal. Lord Carswell agreed with the other judges with regard to Reynolds's appeal, and dismissed it. The judgment of the Law Lords was 4 to 1 in favour of the UK government. Cited as: [2005] 2 WLR 1369, [2006] AC 173, 18 BHRC 677, [2006] 1 AC 173, [2005] UKHL 37, [2005] UKHRR 1185, [2005] HRLR 23, [2005] 4 All ER 545 == Citations == Wandsworth London Borough Council v Michalak [2003] 1 WLR 617, 625; R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] 3 All ER 994; Müller v Austria (1975) 3 DR 25; Gaygusuz v Austria (1997) 23 EHRR 364, 376, 381; Jankovic v Croatia (2000) 30 EHRR CD183; Koua Poirrez v France (2005) 40 EHRR 34, 45; Hepple v United Kingdom (App Nos 65731/01 and 65900/01); Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark (1976) 1 EHRR 711, 732–733; R (S) v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196, 2213; Thlimmenos v Greece (2001) 31 EHRR 411; Van der Mussele v Belgium (1983) 6 EHRR 163, 179–180; Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia (1976) 438 US 285; 427 US 307 Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557, 568, 605; Van der Mussele v Belgium (1983) 6 EHRR 163, 180; Grosz, Beatson and Duffy's Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European Convention, (2000); Laws LJ, Carson & Anor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWCA Civ 797; Budak v Turkey (unreported), 7 September 2004 (App No 57345/00); Beale v United Kingdom (unreported), 12 October 2004 (App No 6743/03); San Antonio School District v Rodriguez (1973) 411 US 1, 29; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 471, 501; Schmidt v Germany (1994) 18 EHRR 513, 527; Van Raalte v Netherlands (1997) 24 EHRR 503, 518-519; Law of the European Convention on Human Rights,; Jacobs and White, European Law of Human Rights, 3rd ed (2002), pp 355-6, citing Hoffmann v Austria (1994) 17 EHRR 293, 316; Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal (2001) 31 EHRR 1055, 1071; Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312, 330; Defrenne v Société Anonyme Belge de Navigation Aérienne (Case 43/75) [1976] ECR 455); Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European Convention (2000); Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait [2002] 1 WLR 1868, 1883; Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337; Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, 2nd ed (2002); Johnston v Ireland (1986) 9 EHRR 203; R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] 2 WLR 590, 604; Belgian Linguistic Case (No 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252, 284; Wessels-Bergervoet v Netherlands (2004) 38 EHRR 793); J W v United Kingdom (1983) 34 DR 153; Corner v United Kingdom (unreported), 17 May 1985 (App No 11271/84) ; Müller v Austria (1975) 3 DR 25; R (ProLife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation [2004] 1 AC 185, 240; James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123, 142; R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p Kebeline [2000] 2 AC 326, 381; Asmundsson v Iceland, App. No. 60669/00, 12 October 2004, para 43; == See also == *UK employment discrimination law *UK labour law *Human Rights Act 1998 *Protocol 1 of Article 1 of the European Court of Human Rights *Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights *Article 14 of the Convention == Further reading == *Annette Carson *R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Case Summary : - High Court hearing - 2002 : - Supreme Court Appeal - 2003 : - European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - Fourth Section - 2008 : - European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - Grand Chamber - 2010 == External links == *Official Transcript == References == Category:Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:International Labour Organization conventions Category:Human rights case law Category:1998 in United Kingdom case law Category:United Kingdom labour case law Category:United Kingdom equality case law Category:House of Lords cases Category:2002 in United Kingdom case law Category:2003 in United Kingdom case law Category:2005 in United Kingdom case law Category:Pensions in the United Kingdom Category:Frozen state pension
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Another [2002] EWHC 978 (Admin) was heard in the Administration Court of the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice on 22 May 2002 before the Honourable Mr. Justice Burnton. Annette Carson was the claimant, the Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (the UK Government) was the defendant and the Commonwealth of Australia was an intervening party. This was a Human Rights Act 1998 case on the "right to property" under Article 1 of the First Protocol and Prohibition of Discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights as reflected in UK law. == Background == In April 2002, Carson brought this case before the High Court under the Human Rights Act 1998. Carson had spent most of her working life in the UK, and during that time she kept paying her full National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and UK taxes where applicable. She relocated to South Africa in 1989 for work purposes, and continued paying NICs to ensure that on retirement she would be eligible for the full UK State Pension. This she had started drawing in September 2000. She then realised that the amount she received would not be increased in line with her peers in the UK, and her pension was being "frozen" at the level at which she first started receiving it. Carson contended that she was being discriminated against with regard to deprivation of the annual inflationary increase to her UK State Pension because she had relocated to South Africa for work purposes para 9. She had determined that UK pensioners living in some overseas countries received the annual increase, whilst others, like her, were deprived of this annual increase. Carson also contended that the failure of the UK Government to pay to pensioners resident in certain countries abroad the inflation uprating of their UK State pensions, while paying the annual uprating in other countries, contravened the Human Rights Act 1998 (based on the European Convention on Human Rights) on grounds of discrimination. Annual uprating to the UK State Pension is payable in countries like the UK, the (EEA) and a number of disparate countries (the United States, for example), whilst not being payable in predominantly Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. In addition, Carson contended that this contravened Article 14 of the convention (Prohibition of Discrimination), and also that her state pension, or alternatively its uprating, were "pecuniary rights", and therefore “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the convention (Protection of Property). == UK state pension recipients == In May 2002, there were 11.1 million pensioners in receipt of a UK state pension - 10.2 million living in the UK and 900,000 who resided abroad. Of those, 418,000 resided in countries where UK pensioners received the annual inflationary increase to their UK state pension, and 482,000 who, like Carson, resided in countries which did not receive the annual increase. Of the 482,000 pensioners who did not receive the annual increase to their UK State Pension, 465,000 of them resided in just 10 countries - the remaining 17,000 were spread far and wide around the world. The top 10 "Frozen" countries at that time were: == Judgment == Justice Burnton stated that: > "Very many of the expatriate UK pensioners who do not receive uprated > pensions have a strong and understandable sense of grievance......They feel > that they have been deprived of an increasingly substantial part of the > fruit of their contributions......as a result, they have formed associations > to press their cause for equal treatment" para 6 Carson claimed that she had not been informed that her UK state pension would be "frozen" when she decided to pay her voluntary contributions from South Africa. para 7 and that the failure of the UK Government to pay her the amount of the annual uprating wrongfully deprived her part of her pension and the entirety of the uprating. para 9 The UK Government also claimed that their policy decision not to pay uprating to Carson and others in her position was justified. para 10 The Court believed that there were seven key issues that needed addressing: para 15 # Is the state pension or the uprating a possession of Carson within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol? # If so, is the failure or refusal of the Government to pay an uprated pension to Carson a deprivation of that possession for the purposes of Article 1 of the First Protocol? # If so, is that deprivation justified? # If uprating is not a possession for the purposes of Article 1 of the First Protocol, is the payment of uprating to some, but not all, pensioners nonetheless within the scope of Article 14? i.e. does Carson's complaint relate to "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in (the) Convention?" # If so, what is the criterion applied to determine the differential treatment of pensioners? # Is that criterion a ground "such as sex, race, ... or other status" that is, unless objectively justified, prohibited by Article 14? # If so, is the differential treatment of Carson's wrongful discrimination in breach of Article 14 as compared with (i) pensioners living in the UK, or (ii) pensioners residing in countries such as the United States where the UK State Pension is uprated? According to the Third Report (January 1997) of Social Security Committee Report: > It is impossible to discern any pattern behind the selection of countries > with whom bilateral agreements have been made providing for uprating. para > 30 The report went on to say: > Surely no one would have deliberately designed a policy of paying pensions > to people living abroad intending to end up where we are today....it would > be clearly impractical to negotiate bilateral agreements with each of the > other countries where people draw British state retirement pensions, and in > any case unnecessary; a simple change in British law could enable upratings > to be paid in any or all overseas countries provided the political will was > there to do so. On 13 November 2000, Jeff Rooker, Minister of State, said in the House of Commons: > I have already said I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present > situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern. It does not > matter whether it is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements > with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are > differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the > situation has existed for years. para 32 The UK Government stated that successive governments have limited the annual increase to the UK state pension since the increase is based on economic factors in the UK. At the same time, to pass on the increase to pensioners who have chosen to live in "frozen" countries would mean that to do so would create an additional tax burden of UK taxpayers. para 34 The United Kingdom is the only OECD country that discriminates between pensioners living in different overseas countries. para 36 In Corner (App. No. 11271/84), the European Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the complaint that the failure to pay uprating infringed Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 14. In Justice Burnton's opinion, this case in and of itself was enough to rule in the Government's favour. para 43 Justice Burnton also stated: :"...a government may lawfully decide to restrict the payment of benefits of any kind to those who are within its territorial jurisdiction, leaving the care and support of those who live elsewhere to the governments of the countries in which they live. Such a restriction may be based wholly or partly on considerations of cost, but having regard to the wide margin of discretion that must be accorded to the government, I do not think it one that a court may say is unreasonable or lacking in objective justification". para 73 Justice Burnton concluded that the remedy to the "frozen" UK state pension annual increase issue was a political decision and not a judicial one, and, as a result, he dismissed the application, and found in favour of the UK Government. Costs were awarded against Carson, be she was given leave to appeal. paras 76 & 77 On 22 June 2002, the "frozen" pensions issue was raised in the House of Lords, and there was reference to the Carson case. This case evoked emotions around the world, with some writing to the UK Parliament in protest. == Citations == Gaygusuz v Austria (1996) 23 EHRLR 230; Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 3rd edition, at section 106, page 252; Air Canada v UK (1995) 20 EHRR 150; Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745; Bankovic and ors v Belgium and others (App. no. 52207/99); Ryan v Liverpool Health Authority [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 23; Bell v Todd [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 12; Hooper and ors v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWHC 191 (Admin); The Queen on the application of Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWHC 426 (Admin); Alconbury [2001] 2WLR 1389; Müller v Austria (App. No. 5849/72, Comm. Report 1.10.75, 73 DR 19); T v Sweden (App. No. 10671/83) (1986) EHRR 269; X v Italy (App. No. 7459/76); JW and EW v UK (App. No. 9776/82); Corner (App. No. 11271/84); Skorkiewicz, Coke and Bellet v France (App. no. 4083332/98; Walden v Liechtenstein (Decision no. 33916/96); Shackell v UK (App No. 4585/99); Matthews v United Kingdom (App. No. 40302/98); Jankovic v Croatia Dec. no. 43440/98; Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] EWCA Civ 271; Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European Convention (2000); P v UK (App. No. 14751/89); Nelson v United Kingdom (App. No. 11077/84); Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29; Darby v Sweden (1991) 13 EHRR 774; Havard (App. No. 38882/97); Kebilene [2000] 2 AC 326; Waite v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and another [2002] EWCA Civ 482; Steele Ford & Newton v CPS [1994]; Blackburn v Attorney-General [1971] 1 WLR 1037; J H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418; Brunswick (Duke of) v. King of Hanover (1844) 6 Beav. 1; (1848) 2 H.L. Cas. 1, H.L. (E.); Mellacher v Austria [1989] 12 EHRR 391; R (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health [2002] EWHC 886 (Admin). == See also == *Human Rights Act 1998 *Protocol 1 of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights *Article 14 of the same Convention == Further reading == *Annette Carson *R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Case Summary : - Supreme Court Appeal - 2003 : - House of Lords Appeal - 2005 : - European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - Fourth Section - 2008 : - European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - Grand Chamber - 2010 == References == == External links == *Official Transcript Category:Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:Human rights case law Category:1998 in United Kingdom case law Category:United Kingdom labour case law Category:United Kingdom equality case law Category:House of Lords cases Category:2002 in United Kingdom case law Category:Pensions in the United Kingdom Category:Frozen state pension
R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were a series of civil action court cases seeking judicial review of the British government's policies under the Human Rights Act 1998. They related to the right to property under Article 1 of the First Protocol and prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the convention. In Reynolds's case, there was also Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for "private and family life" to be considered, as well as Article 3 of the ECHR, the prohibition of torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". == Background == Annette Carson was a UK pensioner who had relocated to work in South Africa in 1989. In April 2002, she brought this case under the Human Rights Act 1998. Carson contended that the failure of the UK government to pay to pensioners resident in certain countries abroad the inflation uprating of their UK State pensions, while paying the annual uprating in other countries, contravened the UK Human Rights Act of 1998 (based on the European Convention on Human Rights) on grounds of discrimination. Annual uprating to the UK State Pension is payable in countries like the UK, the European Economic Area and a number of disparate countries (the United States, for example), whilst not being payable in predominantly Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Joanne Reynolds was under 25 and living in a council flat in England. She was receiving the Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support. She received less than she would have received if she had been over 25. This allegedly breached: *Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR; *Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR; *Article 8 of the ECHR; *Article 3 of ECHR. The two claimants – Carson and Reynolds – had separate administrative court hearings in 2002, but their appeal hearing in 2003 to the Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and to the House of Lords in 2005 were consolidated since the UK courts decided that the points of law raised in the administrative courts were similar. The Carson case was pursued as a class action in the ECHR in 2008, where she was joined by twelve other applicants who, because they were resident in Australia and Canada, were in a similar position to her. Reynolds was not involved in this class action. == Chronology and judgments == === R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Another === Cited as: [2002] EWHC 978 (Admin), [2002] 3 All ER 994 This case was heard in the Administration Court of the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice before the Honourable Mr. Justice Burnton. Justice Burnton said that he understood how: "Very many of the expatriate UK pensioners who do not receive uprated pensions have a strong and understandable sense of grievance ... They feel that they have been deprived of an increasingly substantial part of the fruit of their contributions ... as a result, they have formed associations to press their cause for equal treatment".para 6 The response from the Secretary of State for the DWP was that successive Governments have taken the view that increases in the UK State Pension were based on economic factors within the UK, and it would be unfair on UK tax payers to incur additional taxes to support those residents that have chosen to live abroad.para 34 The United Kingdom is the only OECD country that discriminates between pensioners living in different overseas countries.para 36 Justice Burnton also stated that "a government may lawfully decide to restrict the payment of benefits of any kind to those who are within its territorial jurisdiction, leaving the care and support of those who live elsewhere to the governments of the countries in which they live. Such a restriction may be based wholly or partly on considerations of cost, but having regard to the wide margin of discretion that must be accorded to the government, I do not think it one that a court may say is unreasonable or lacking in objective justification".para 73. Justice Burnton concluded that the decision as to whether expatriate UK pensioners received state pension benefits (including any annual increases) was a political decision rather than a judicial one, and he therefore dismissed the case, but he gave leave to appeal.paras 76 & 77 Costs were awarded against Carson. === R (Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions === Cited as: [2002] EWHC 426 (Admin) This case was heard in the Administration Court of the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice before the Honourable Mr. Justice Wilson. Reynolds contended that under the 1998 Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights her Article 1 of the First Protocol, Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol, Article 8 of ECHR and Article 3 of the ECHR rights had been breached. Judge Wilson decided that entitlement of Income Support is not a "possession" within Article 1 and that the demarcation line drawn by the Government i.e. between the ages of 24 and 25 were made clear by Parliament in 1987. These were extended in 1996. He concluded that it was an issue of social policy, and that the Government had demonstrated that there was "reasonable foundation" for the demarcation. It was also his opinion that: "Article 3 describes ill treatment of a depth which the level of payment to Reynolds wholly fails to reach". However, Reynolds contended that the demarcation between the age of 24 and 25 in terms of receiving state benefits was irrational. Judge Wilson disagreed, and dismissed Reynolds application. Justice Wilson found in favour of the Secretary of State, but gave Reynolds leave to appeal. ===Carson & Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions === Cited as: [2003] 3 All ER 577, [2003] HRLR 36, [2003] EWCA Civ 797 Two High Court cases which had been heard independently were brought together for the purposes of this appeal before the Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division) before Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws, and Lord Justice Rix which was heard on 17 June 2003: # R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions from the Administrative Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales before Justice Burnton; # R (Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWHC 426 (Admin) (7 March 2002) from the Administration Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales before Mr. Justice Wilson. Lord Justice Laws conceded that the current situation was "haphazard", quoting the UK Minister of State Jeff Rooker who, on 13 November 2000, said: "I have already said I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern. It does not matter whether it is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the situation has existed for years".para 54 The UK Government's position has always been that successive British governments have taken the view that any increases to the UK state pension are based on economic conditions in the UK and that it would be unfair on UK taxpayers to pay a higher level of taxes in order to pay pension increases to people who have chosen to become resident elsewhere in the world. Motions to pay the annual increases to those UK pensioners living abroad who do not currently receive these increases were submitted to both Houses of Parliament in June and July 1995 during the passage of the Pensions Bill, which called for uprating to be paid. All were defeated with significant majorities.para 52 The UK only uprates the State Pension where there is a legal liability to do so; this includes all UK pensioners living in the UK, the EEA, and a number of other countries where there are bilateral agreements in place relating to the UK State Pension. Whilst bilateral agreements were agreed with Australia (1953), New Zealand (1956) and Canada (1959), they did not include the uprating of the UK State Pension. Australia cancelled its bilateral agreement with the UK in 2001 because the UK Government would not uprate the State Pension for those UK pensioners who had emigrated to Australia. This was not an issue when the UK joined the EEC since bilateral agreements were in place for all of the EEC countries except Denmark. These bilateral agreements did facilitate the uprating of the UK State Pension.para 53 In rejecting Reynolds's case, Lord Justice Laws said: "in my view, the Secretary of State has demonstrated a perfectly reasonable justification for the differential payments of Jobseeker's Allowance". The three Law Justices dismissed both appeals, but leave was given to Carson and Reynolds to appeal to the House of Lords. ===R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions=== thumb|right|Lord Hoffman, one of the Appellate Committee Lords of Appeal Cited as: [2005] 2 WLR 1369, [2006] AC 173, 18 BHRC 677, [2006] 1 AC 173, [2005] UKHL 37, [2005] UKHRR 1185, [2005] HRLR 23, [2005] 4 All ER 545 The Carson/Reynolds appeal was heard by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) before the Appellate Committee made up of: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell. Carson argued that she was being unfairly treated. She says she had paid the same National Insurance contributions (NICs) as a United Kingdom resident and therefore she should receive the same pension. She is supported by associations of expatriate pensioners in South Africa and elsewhere. Lord Hoffman said: "Carson's case is typical of over 400,000 United Kingdom pensioners living abroad in countries which do not have reciprocal treaty arrangements under which cost of living increases are payable. Arrangements exist for countries within EEA countries (European Union countries, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and a number of other countries such as the United States ("treaty countries"). However, there are no such treaties with South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries".para 6 The House of Lords accepted the Secretary of State's arguments with regards to Reynolds. Lord Walker and Lord Nichols referred to case law saying they would intensely scrutinise race, sex and orientation justifications. But age was not in that. It is "a personal characteristic", said Lord Walker, "but it is different in kind from other personal characteristics. Every human being starts life as a tiny infant and none of us can do anything to stop the passage of the years. Lines must be drawn somewhere, and "drawing lines which create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary". The key issue was whether the Secretary of State had the right to deal with Jobseeker's Allowance claimants who were under 25 in a different way to those who were over the age of 25.paras 36 & 37 It was also noted that the age qualification had replaced a previous unworkable qualification of householders and non- householders. Lord Carswell agreed with the other judges in rejecting Reynolds's appeal but would have allowed Carson's appeal and declared that he considered regulation 3 of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/910) to be unlawful.para 104 In addition, he cited a number of other for allowing Carson's appeal.paras: 96-104 The judgment of the Law Lords was 4 to 1 in favour of the Secretary of State. ===Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom (2008)=== thumb|right |European Court of Human Rights Courtroom Cited as: [2009] 48 EHRR 41, [2008] ECHR 1194, 48 EHRR 41 Carson was joined by 12 other applicants from Australia and Canada who were in the same position as she was, and they had formed a class action to appeal the UK House of Lords judgment. The case was considered in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Fourth Section (Lower Chamber) in Strasbourg, France on appeal from the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in a hearing before Lech Garlicki (president), Nicolas Bratza, Giovanni Bonello, Ljiljana Mijović, David Thór Björgvinsson, Ledi Bianku, and Mihai Poalelungi on 4 November 2008. The applicants argued that the entitlement to a basic state pension was a "possession" within Article 1 of Protocol 1, and the government were depriving them of part of that "possession" i.e. the annual uprating. They were being denied this uprating because they resided in mainly Commonwealth countries that the UK Government claimed did not have reciprocal agreements with the UK and these were termed "frozen countries". All of these applicants had been adversely affected financially as they were not receiving the annual uprating to their UK state pension that was intended to help counteract inflation. As a result, their UK state pension was being eroded and it had less buying power year on year.para 59 In addition, the applicants claimed that Article 14 also applied in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1. They believed that previous interpretations of case law had been too narrow and superseded by more recent case law. Whilst the UK Government had maintained that moving abroad was a freedom of choice, for many, this was the only way they could be near their family. They felt that they were being unfairly discriminated against. This discrimination, based on grounds of where a person chooses to reside is central to the enjoyment of certain human rights such as the right to family life, freedom of movement, and human dignity. This is likely to have a greater impact on women since, statistically, they will live longer. Given this, the court is right to scrutinise the UK Government.para 60 Age Concern were a "third party" in this case and they had carried out a number of focus groups that identified that receiving the annual increase to the UK state pension was important to retirees. In carrying out surveys of older Chinese immigrants one of the main reasons why they had not returned to their home of birth was because they would no longer receive the annual increase to their UK state pension. In addition, in terms of the "most desirable" countries for emigration, five out of the top ten are "frozen" countries (Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand and South Africa), and therefore, it is highly likely that a large proportion of the older population had families residing in countries where the UK state pension was not uprated.para 64 Where families live abroad, then at some stage their parents are more likely join them and the Institute for Public Policy Research has produced a report that showed that 20% of older people had emigrated to be with family or for personal reasons i.e. not work- related. The UK Government argued that because the applicants were from outside the UK, it was fair and reasonable to treat them differently. Social Security benefits, of which the State Pension was one, were meant for residents of the UK such that they could enjoy certain minimum standards. Systems that existed in other countries were also tailored to individuals living in those countries.para 56 In Carson's House of Lords Appeal, Lord Hoffmann stated that those in need were "generally recognised to be national in character ... it does not extend to inhabitants of foreign countries", and that this was enshrined in UK domestic legislation. The Government agreed with Lord Hoffmann that it could not be the law that the United Kingdom was prohibited from treating expatriate pensioners generously unless it treated them in exactly the same way as pensioners at home. The applicants contended that discrimination only occurs if similar situations are treated differently and that there is no difference between the three cohorts of pensioners (those residing in the UK, those living abroad in "frozen countries" and those living abroad where the uprating is paid); they all share one common characteristic, and that is they spent the same time in the UK and paid the same social security contributions into the National Insurance Fund. In addition, the applicants contended, the need for a reasonable standard of living is the same for all three groups of pensioners. All of the UK domestic courts (other than Lord Carswell in the House of Lords appeal) agreed that the three groups of pensioners do not have to be treated the same when it came to uprating the UK state pension. The UK state pension is designed to provide a "minimum standard of living for those living in the UK", and the court found that the three groups of pensioners were not in relevantly analogous positions and therefore the UK Government had the right to treat them differently. As far back as 1983, there was case law regarding a British pensioner who had emigrated to Australia who was denied an uprated pension. In addition, in Carson's House of Lords appeal, the government could have made the decision to not pay any UK state pension to "frozen" pensioners at all. When looking at all UK pensioners living overseas, the court could not find similarity between those pensioners who were resident in "frozen" countries and those who were resident in "unfrozen" countries. Social security contributions are used for other purposes besides paying the state pension – the National Health Service, for example. Even in those cases where there is proximity between "frozen" and "unfrozen" countries – Canada and the United States, for example – there are still differences in their social security provision, taxation, rates of inflation, interest and currency exchange rates to make it difficult to compare them.para 79 The court considers that these differences are "objective and reasonable" such that the UK Government can treat them differently, even though Age Concern in England made some powerful arguments as to why pensioners emigrate in the first place; ultimately, it is down to a matter of "personal choice". In addition, the UK Government claimed that it had made people aware that if they moved abroad, they may be moving to a "frozen" country where their UK state pension would not be uprated.para 80 The court decided that the government can decide which countries it wants to have reciprocal social security agreements with and which ones it does not, based on its own economic policies; therefore, in the court's opinion, the government has not violated Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.para 81 & 82 The court therefore decided by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1. The dissenting opinion came from the President of the Court, Lech Garlicki. He thought that the difference in treatment of different cohorts of pensioners had no objective and reasonable justification.Dissenting Opinion of Judge Garlicki (President) ===Carson and Others v. The United Kingdom (2010)=== thumb|Annette Carson and other applicants and their legal team prior to first hearing before the ECHR Grand Chamber - 2 September 2009 Cited as: [2010] ECHR 338, 51 EHRR 13, (2010) 51 EHRR 13, 29 BHRC 22 Carson and the 12 other applicants appealed the decision from the ECHR Fourth Section. The case was heard publicly in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Grand Chamber in Strasbourg, France on 2 September 2009 and 27 January 2010, with judgment handed down on 16 March 2010. This was appealed before Jean-Paul Costa (President); Christos Rozakis; Nicolas Bratza; Peer Lorenzen; Françoise Tulkens; Josep Casadevall; Karel Jungwiert; Nina Vajić; Dean Spielmann; Renate Jaeger; Danutė Jočienė; Ineta Ziemele; Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre; Päivi Hirvelä; Luis López Guerra; Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska; Zdravka Kalaydjieva. The applicants argued that their following human rights had been violated:para 52 # Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to property on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention # Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Article 14 (six applicants) The applicants argued that they were being discriminated against because they were not receiving the annual increase to their UK state pension whilst others in a similar position to them were. The Court maintained that, under UK domestic law and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants do not have a right to receive the annual uprating. This had been dismissed by the ECHR Fourth Section and could not be appealed.para 57 The Court did not accept the UK Government's objections to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for the 12 applicants that had not filed domestic proceedings in the UK, and given that Carson had already brought test cases which had failed in the UK domestic courts, there was no point in the applicants litigating in the UK.para 58 The applicants maintained that the treating of "residence" was an aspect of "personal status" and was consistent with case law. In addition, their position is that whilst moving abroad is a question of "free choice" it is not so if it is driven by the need or desire to be close to family members.para 67 The government had conceded in the UK domestic courts that Carson's "foreign residence" was protected under Article 14, but argued that moving abroad was a matter of choice.para 68 The third parties, Age Concern and Help the Aged, emphasised the importance of family support in old age.para 69 The government argued that National Insurance contributions paid into the National Insurance Fund cannot be equated to contributions to occupational or private pension schemes. With regard to the UK state pension, there are no guaranteed entitlements.para 81 The Court agreed unanimously that the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 inadmissible; they rejected unanimously the UK Government's preliminary objection concerning the admissibility of the complaints of the applicants, other than Carson herself; they agreed by eleven votes to six that there had been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The six dissenting judges published their joint opinion setting out their reasons for dissent.Joint dissenting opinion The UK Government prevailed; Carson and the other applicants lost their appeal and they had run out of courts to appeal to. == References == Category:Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights Category:International Labour Organization conventions Category:Human rights case law Category:1998 in United Kingdom case law Category:United Kingdom labour case law Category:United Kingdom equality case law Category:House of Lords cases Category:2002 in United Kingdom case law Category:2003 in United Kingdom case law Category:2005 in United Kingdom case law Category:2008 in United Kingdom case law Category:2010 in United Kingdom case law Category:Pensions in the United Kingdom Category:Frozen state pension
R (Christie Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department was a UK court case that ruled that the Home Office did not have an obligation to offer a third gender "X" option on passports. == Background == Legal recognition of non-binary gender has advanced in the 2010s, with several governments introducing third gender options (usually in form of an "X" alongside "M" and "F") on passports, such as Australia, Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Nepal, and Uruguay. The International Civil Aviation Organization accepts "X" as an option for travel documents in its official guidelines. While the UK currently does not offer a third gender option for passports, the 2010s saw an increase in calls for the introduction of such an option. In July 2017, 82 MPs signed an early day motion calling for the British government to introduce a third gender on British passports. == Summary == Christie Elan-Cane is a British non-gendered activist who has been active in campaigning for LGBT+ rights since the 1990s. With law firm Clifford Chance, Elan-Cane sued the Home Office in the 2010s over its refusal to issue passports with a third gender "X" option. In 2018, the High Court ruled in favour of the Home Office. In March 2020, the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court ruling, finding that "there was no positive obligation on the state to provide an “X” marker in order to ensure the right of the Appellant to respect for private life." The Court of Appeal also ruled that there was no consensus yet among the Council of Europe on gender neutral passports and that there was no wide-ranging plan for gender neutral options in British government ID systems. In January 2021, it was announced that the UK Supreme Court would hear the appeal in mid-July of that year. In December 2021, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom issued its judgment, ruling against Elan-Cane. The court's judgment ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights did not require states to issue an "X" option and that there was "no legislation in the United Kingdom which recognises a non-gendered category of individuals." Elan-Cane pledged to appeal the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. == References == Category:Transgender case law in the United Kingdom Category:Equality rights Category:LGBT rights in the United Kingdom Category:Transphobia in the United Kingdom Category:2021 in LGBT history
R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the rule of law. ==Facts== Corner House Research is a non-governmental organization involved in the Campaign Against Arms Trade coalition. The Corner House applied for judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) decision to stop investigating BAE Systems. The SFO director decided to halt a criminal investigation into alleged bribery in relation to an arms supply contract between BAE Systems and the Saudi Arabian authorities, known as the Al-Yamamah arms deal. The UK government gave arms in return for 600,000 barrels (95,000 cubic metres) of crude oil per day. The first sales were in September 1985, and more recently 72 Eurofighter Typhoons in August 2006. In August 2005 CEO Mike Turner said BAE earned £43bn and could earn £40bn more. In 2010, BAE pleaded guilty to charges in the US of false accounting and making misleading statements. The Serious Fraud Office began to investigate. Saudi Arabia had threatened to take action that would damage UK security if the investigation continued. The SFO dropped the investigation. ==Judgment== ===Divisional Court=== Moses LJ and Sullivan J held the Director of the Serious Fraud Office violated the rule of law by dropping investigation into bribery charges against BAE Systems. In his judgment he said the following.[2008] EWHC 714 ===House of Lords=== The House of Lords held the possible consequences that might flow from pursuing the investigation were considered to be sufficiently serious to persuade the House that the Director’s decision was lawful. Lord Bingham said the following. Lord Hoffmann and Lord Rodger agreed. Baroness Hale said the following. Lord Brown gave a concurring opinion. ==See also== *United Kingdom constitutional law ==Notes== ==References== *J Jowell [2008] JR 273 *Lord Steyn [2009] PL 338 Category:United Kingdom constitutional case law
R (Coughlan) v North and East Devon Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 1871 is a UK enterprise law case, concerning health care in the UK. ==Facts== Miss Coughlan claimed she should be able to remain at Mardon House, Exeter, purpose built for her and seven others with severe disabilities. After a 1971 road traffic accident, she became tetraplegic, needing constant care. Devon HA decided it should be closed in 1996, although she had been assured before it was a ‘home for life’. The Health Authority argued Mardon House had become ‘a prohibitively expensive white elephant’ which ‘left fewer resources available for other services’. ==Judgment== The Court of Appeal held there was a legitimate expectation to fair treatment, with a substantive benefit of the ‘home for life’. Frustrating the expectation would be an abuse of power. However the duty to promote health, in statute, was not a duty to ensure the service was comprehensive. Lord Woolf MR said that the failure to keep the home open was ‘equivalent to a breach of contract in private law’. He said the following. ECHR article 8 was also discussed. ==See also== *United Kingdom enterprise law ==Notes== ==References== * Category:United Kingdom enterprise case law Category:United Kingdom administrative case law Category:United Kingdom constitutional case law
R (Daily Mail and General Trust plc) v HM Treasury and Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1988) Case 81/87 is an EU law case, concerning the freedom of establishment in the European Union. ==Facts== The Daily Mail, a newspaper company, was resident in the United Kingdom. It wanted to transfer residence to the Netherlands and set up a subsidiary or branch in the UK instead. This was to be done for the purpose of selling a significant part of its non- permanent assets and using the sale proceeds to buy its own shares without having to pay the tax normally due on such transactions in the UK. It could not do this without permission from the UK Treasury. It argued this contravened its right of establishment under (what is now) the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 49. ==Judgment== The Court of Justice held that TFEU article 49 did not apply, and so the rules requiring UK Treasury permission could operate. Given the wide variation in national laws about the required factor connecting a company to the national territory for the purposes of incorporation, and also the wide variation of national laws on transfer of a company’s head office from one place to another, companies cannot rely on articles 49 and 54. ==See also== *European Union law *Wilson v UK ==Notes== ==References== * Category:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26 is a UK constitutional law case of the House of Lords case on the rights of a prisoner when his cell is searched by prison officers. ==Facts== The case concerned whether cell searches contravened a prisoner's right to private correspondence with his solicitor. The case is of importance for its use of a proportionality test in a judicial review case, a method copied from the jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights. ==Judgment== The prisoner's case was accepted. ==References== * Helen Fenwick and Gavin Phillipson, "Text, cases & materials on public law & human rights" (2 rev ed), Routledge Cavendish, 2003, ==External links== *House of Lords judgment Category:House of Lords cases Category:2001 in United Kingdom case law Category:Home Office litigation Category:United Kingdom constitutional case law
R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers; Ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815 is a UK constitutional law, company law and administrative law case of the Court of Appeal. It extended the scope of judicial review in English law to private bodies exercising public functions. Before Datafin, only bodies established by statute could be judicially reviewed, while private bodies could only be sued for their actions in contract or tort law. ==Facts== The Panel on Take-overs and Mergers is the City of London's self-regulating mechanism for dealing with mergers and acquisitions. The applicant complained about a breach of the Panel code by another company involved in the process and were unhappy with the Panel's decision. The case ended up in the Court of Appeal, due to the fact that the High Court felt that it had before it a matter that was outside its jurisdictional reach. Because it considered that the defendant wasn't amenable to judicial review, it wasn't able to grant the claimant the required leave to continue on with the claim. The main issue facing the Court was whether to review the decision of a Panel set up under private law using the standards usually applied in administrative law. ==Judgment== The Court of Appeal held that the powers exercised by the Panel (regulating take-overs and enforcing a code of conduct on them) were essentially in the domain of public law and formed part of the Government's scheme to regulate the City. Those affected had no choice but to submit to the Panel's jurisdiction. As a result, the Panel had the duty to act judicially and its decisions could be checked by means of judicial review. On the merits, however, the Court found no ground to quash the disputed decision. Sir John Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls, gave the leading judgment. ==Significance== This decision is important in the light of an increasing "privatization" of public powers. In recent years, the Government has delegated many of its powers to formally private bodies, which nevertheless can make decisions affecting individual citizens and the society at large. Following the Datafin case, such decisions are now amenable to judicial review by courts. In the later case of R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Guinness plc,[1990] 1 QB 146 the judicial authority of the Panel was tested further in respect of the manner in which it handles investigations into breaches of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers. In this case, the Panel refused to adjourn the appellant's hearing which related to its takeover of Distillers Co plc, in undisclosed concert with a Swiss bank, for which the Court of Appeal held that less there was any real injustice caused by the Panel's procedure, it would take exceptional circumstances for the court to intervene (particularly in the event, as was the case, that the appellant had not made use of the appeals tribunal existing within the realms of the Panel). ==See also== *UK constitutional law *UK company law ==Notes== Category:1986 in United Kingdom case law Category:1986 in England Category:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases Category:United Kingdom administrative case law Category:United Kingdom company case law Category:United Kingdom constitutional case law
R (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15 is a United Kingdom discrimination case, concerning the Jewish Free School's policy of denying entry to people whom they defined as belonging to a different religion. The United Kingdom Supreme Court held by a majority of five to four that the school had discriminated against pupils, including the claimant, "E", on the basis of race under the Race Relations Act 1976. Five of their Lordships held that the school had directly discriminated against applicant pupils and two of their Lordships held that the school was indirectly discriminating on grounds of race. The case was the first adjudicated by the newly established court. ==Facts== In October 2006, a Jewish father made enquiries with the United Synagogue as to whether his son, born to a mother who had been converted to Judaism under the auspices of the Masorti movement, could convert under Orthodox auspices for entry to JFS in September 2007. He was advised the process could take several years and that such applications to JFS are very rarely successful given that the school is highly oversubscribed. He applied for his son but did not declare to the school's admissions board the mother's conversion history. By April 2007, he had not supplied JFS with the requested information, whereupon the school advised him that, being oversubscribed that year, it was unlikely his son could be offered a place. He thereupon unsuccessfully appealed for reconsideration of his application. In July 2008, the father sought to prosecute JFS on the grounds of alleged racial discrimination, but High Court judge, Mr Justice Munby, ruled contrariwise, holding JFS' selection criteria were not intrinsically different from Christian or Islamic faith schools and their being declared illegal could adversely affect "the admission arrangements in a very large number of faith schools of many different faiths and denominations". ==Judgment== Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Kerr held that the school had directly discriminated on grounds of race. Lord Clarke wrote, > "I do not accept they were not considering M’s ethnic origins or making a > decision on ethnic grounds....As I see it, once it is accepted...that the > reason M is not a member of the Jewish religion is that his forbears in the > matrilineal line were not Orthodox Jews and that, in that sense his less > favourable treatment is determined by his descent, it follows that he is > discriminated against on ethnic grounds....The question is, in my > opinion...whether it is discrimination on ethnic grounds to discriminate > against all those who are not descended from Jewish women."Full Supreme > Court judgment Lord Hope and Lord Walker held there had been indirect discrimination on grounds of race. Lord Hope wrote that identifying the school's admission criteria as racial, rather than religious, was to confuse the effect of this unequal treatment with the grounds for the treatment; he and Lord Walker said that the school's admission policy nonetheless put certain Jews at a disadvantage. Lord Rodger and Lord Brown dissented. Lord Rodger said that the pupil's mother "could have been as Italian in origin as Sophia Loren and as Roman Catholic as the Pope" as long as she had converted to Judaism in a manner that satisfied the school governors. Both said that the indirect discrimination found by Lords Hope and Walker was acceptable in the service of the school's objective; Lord Brown criticized the idea of imposing a test for admission based on practice and belief as closer to the Christian definition of members of a faith, when Jewish law defines membership in the religion by birth.Mark Hill, 'What the JFS ruling meant' (21.12.2009) The Guardian ==See also== *Who is a Jew? ==References== Category:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases Category:2009 in United Kingdom case law Category:Anti- discrimination case law in the United Kingdom Category:Jewish English history Category:Jewish education in the United Kingdom
R (Equal Opportunities Commission) v Secretary of State for Employment [1995] 1 AC 1 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review. ==Facts== The United Kingdom had a 16 hour per week threshold for all employment protection legislation, and if one had worked for 5 years in a job before a dismissal, the threshold was reduced to 8 hours per week. From 1979 to 1987 the numbers of part time workers grew 30% and the numbers working under 16 hours grew 66%, to 11% of the labour force. In 1994 38% of women part time workers, amounting to 1.9m people were under the threshold. Did this infringe TEC art 119 (TFEU art 157) and the EU Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC? The EOC wished to argue that rules over redundancy pay and unfair dismissal were discriminatory and breached EC law. ==Judgment== The House of Lords held that the hourly threshold contravened the EU law on equal treatment of men and women. The EOC had sufficient interest to gain standing under SDA 1975 s 53. It held that the Secretary of State had not discharged the onus of showing that the threshold did not infringe art 157, applying Bilka-Kaufhaus and Rinner-Kuhn. Lord Keith said that if the EOC did now win it would ‘agitate in judicial review proceedings questions related to sex discrimination which are of public importance and affect a large section of the population.’ He accepted that the promotion of job opportunities was an appropriate goal for employment legislation (or lack of it?) but the Secretary of State had not presented ‘anything capable of being regarded as factual evidence’ to support the contention. There was also no evidence to show that the 16 hour threshold reduced administrative burdens. Lords Jauncey, Lowry, Browne-Wilkinson and Slynn concurred. ==See also== *United Kingdom constitutional law ==Notes== ==References== * Category:United Kingdom constitutional case law