Five Supreme Court judges said the Court of Justice of the European Union must decide the case.
Advertisement
But chose to stay married “in the sight of God” to her wife and mother of their two children.
MB did not apply for a certificate. With the Act in place, it was believed that it was no longer discriminatory to force individuals to end their marriages because they could now remarry or enter in a civil partnership in their new gender. “Accordingly she has not applied for a gender recognition certificate, and so far as the law is concerned she remains a man”.
At an earlier hearing, appeal judge Lord Justice Maurice Kay said MB was the victim of “real misfortune”, and that legal changes since had simply occurred “too late for her to benefit”. The First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal all agreed with that approach.
The impact of European Union legislation on domestic law was one of the topics of debate in the run-up to the referendum.
The Supreme Court justices were “divided on the question”.
A ruling will be made by the court’s deputy president Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge.
The question referred is whether the Directive precludes the imposition in national law of a requirement that, in addition to satisfying the physical, social and psychological criteria for recognising a change of gender, a person who has changed gender must also be unmarried in order to qualify for a state retirement pension.
MB, who is now 68, married while still a man in 1974. This case has been running since 2008.
The Supreme Court referred the question to the CJEU.
He added: “This issue is a matter of principle as well as having financial consequences for pensioners”.
The appeal judge said MB “does not wish to have her marriage annulled”.
The delay in resolving this issue is deeply frustrating for the pensioners involved.
Read the full Supreme Court judgment here.
I am fighting this case for MB because it is an important test of the UK’s commitment to diversity and inclusivity.
Advertisement
The Court of Appeal rejected the claim in July 2014. Does it make a difference if the woman’s religious convictions prevent her ending her marriage? Article 7 (a) provides that the Directive (which has direct effect) was to be without prejudice to the right of Member States to exclude from its scope the determination of pensionable age for the goal of granting old age and retirement pensions. In 1970, the High Court annulled the marriage between Arthur Corbett and the model April Ashley on the grounds that Ashley had been born male and the law would not recognise change of gender. She began living as a woman in 1991 and underwent sex reassignment surgery in 1995.
