In order for a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) about an interference with a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be admissible, the complainant must have first invoked those rights expressly (or in substance) in domestic proceedings. In the discrimination case brought by Gareth Lee against Ashers Bakery and its owners, Mr and Mrs McArthur, concerning their refusal to supply him with a cake iced with the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’ Mr Lee had not invoked those rights and at no point were the domestic courts required to balance his Convention rights against those of the McArthurs. Therefore, he had not exhausted his domestic remedies and his complaint about the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in those proceedings was inadmissible, according to the ECtHR.
Lee v United Kingdom (Application no. 18860/19)
What are the practical implications of this judgment?
This judgment (which it should be noted concerns a separate complaint against the UK government rather than an appeal against the UK Supreme Court decision) demonstrates the importance of raising any relevant human rights points under the European Convention on Human Rights during the course of domestic proceedings. If that is not done it risks any later complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg being ruled as inadmissible. Parties should therefore ensure that if Convention rights are relevant, and there is a risk that a trip to Strasbourg may later be necessary, those rights should be pleaded expressly, even if the case concerns a domestic right which reflects them.
Although this judgment was by a majority (and there is no indication of how large the majority was or the basis of the minority view), this decision is final. There is no appeal process. It appears that this is therefore likely to be the last word in the saga of the ‘Support Gay Marriage’ cake.
Case details
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>