fbpx

Couple Subjected to Race Discrimination By Adoption Agency Win Damages

21st February 2020 By

Race discrimination may not be intentional, but it can be deeply hurtful and, with the right legal advice, victims can both express their disgust and secure compensation. In a striking case on point, a Sikh couple who were rejected as potential adopters because of their ethnicity were awarded substantial damages.

The high-earning professional couple were born and raised in England and considered themselves culturally British, whilst acknowledging their Indian heritage. After making numerous attempts to conceive by IVF, they realised that they were unlikely to have a child biologically their own and applied to a local authority-run adoption agency to be placed on its list of prospective adopters. They were, however, rejected at an early stage of the selection process.

After they launched legal proceedings, the High Court noted that there was nothing in their background to suggest that they were not suitable people to adopt or that they could not offer a loving and caring home to a child. The agency’s policy to ‘match’ children with adopters from a similar background in reality amounted to the imposition of a criterion based on race.

The stereotypical assumption that lay behind the agency’s policy of seeking an exact, or near-exact, ethnic match gave race a disproportionate importance as a factor regarding the welfare of children. In treating the couple’s race as the key criterion when considering their application, the agency had given overwhelming priority to their ethnicity over other factors which were unanimously in their favour.

The couple were particularly vulnerable, having endured numerous rounds of IVF and a sad early pregnancy loss, and were desperate for a child. Whilst stopping short of finding that the discrimination they suffered was intentional, the Court ruled it a very serious case. They were awarded approximately £120,000 in damages, reflecting the injury to their feelings and the costs arising from the discrimination.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...