Burden v United Kingdom
Two elderly sisters living together were not in an analogous situation to married couples or civil partners, so denying them the inheritance tax exemption was not discrimination.
Facts
Joyce and Sybil Burden, two unmarried sisters in their eighties, had lived together all their lives in a house they jointly owned. When one died, the survivor would have to pay inheritance tax on the deceased sister's share of the house, and might have to sell it. Married couples and civil partners were exempt from inheritance tax on transfers between them. The sisters claimed that the difference in treatment breached article 14, read with article 1 of Protocol No 1.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held that there had been no violation. The court said that the relationship between siblings is qualitatively of a different nature to that between married couples and civil partners, because the very essence of the connection between siblings is consanguinity, whereas marriage and civil partnership involve a public undertaking carrying with it a body of rights and obligations of a contractual nature. The sisters were therefore not in an analogous situation to a married couple or civil partners, so there was no discrimination. The court also emphasised the state's wide margin of appreciation in tax matters.
Related cases on discrimination, property, education and elections (article 14 and the Protocols)
- Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, [2006] 2 AC 363
- Belgian Linguistic Case (No 2) (1979) 1 EHRR 252
- DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3
- Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41
- JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 45
- James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123
- Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium (1988) 10 EHRR 1
- Moohan v Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67, [2015] AC 901
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
