Wilkinson v Kitzinger [2006]

1. Facts:

• Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, a same-sex couple, were legally married in Canada, where same-sex marriage was recognised.

• Upon returning to the UK, they sought legal recognition of their marriage, arguing that the refusal to recognise it as a marriage in the UK breached their human rights.

• The couple's marriage was not recognised as such under UK law; instead, it was treated as a civil partnership, which offered similar but not identical rights and status to that of marriage.

• They argued that this refusal violated their rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

2. Outcome:

• The High Court rejected their claim, ruling that the UK’s refusal to recognise their Canadian marriage as a marriage under UK law did not violate their human rights.

• The court held that while the couple’s relationship was entitled to legal recognition and protection, this was sufficiently provided through the UK’s Civil Partnership Act 2004.

• The court found that Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR were not breached, as the UK was not required to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions as marriages under its own laws.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships: The ruling underscored the UK’s legal position at the time, which distinguished between marriage and civil partnership. While civil partnerships provided many of the same legal rights as marriage, they were considered legally distinct, reflecting the UK's stance on same-sex marriage before the introduction of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013.

• Article 8 and 12 Interpretation: The court’s decision highlighted the limits of Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR in requiring states to recognise foreign same-sex marriages as marriages. The ruling affirmed that while the ECHR protects the right to respect for private and family life and the right to marry, these rights do not obligate states to extend marriage recognition beyond their own legal definitions.

• Legal and Social Context: The case took place in a legal context where same-sex marriage was not yet recognised in the UK, reflecting the evolving nature of legal rights and societal attitudes towards LGBTQ+ relationships. The ruling emphasised the role of domestic legislation in determining the recognition of relationships, while also acknowledging the rights of same-sex couples through civil partnerships.

• Judicial Deference to Parliament: The court’s refusal to equate civil partnerships with marriage illustrated judicial deference to Parliament's role in defining marriage. The ruling signalled that any change in the legal recognition of same-sex marriages would need to come through legislative reform rather than judicial interpretation.

• Precedent and Legal Evolution: Wilkinson v Kitzinger is an important case in the history of same-sex relationship recognition in the UK, marking a significant moment in the lead-up to the eventual legalisation of same-sex marriage. The case serves as a reminder of the gradual process of legal reform and the interaction between domestic law and international human rights standards.