June 10 2016
START DATE
END DATE
July 11 2016
Centre for Justice v. The Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Preserve Marriage Limited OUTBermuda
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Supreme Court of Bermuda
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Alex Potts Melvin Douglas Gregory Howard Delroy Duncan Peter Sanderson
Alex Potts
Melvin Douglas Gregory Howard Delroy Duncan Peter Sanderson
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Applicant sought judicial review against the constitutionality and/or legality of the Referendum (Same Sex Relationships) Act 2016 and any Referendum held thereunder arguing it contravened fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Human Rights Act 1981. The court examined issues of standing the appropriateness of a referendum on human rights issues and whether the Act and its proposed implementation infringed constitutional rights. The court ultimately refused the application for an injunction to prevent the referendum scheduled for June 23 2016 but granted the relief sought concerning the designation of certain polling rooms highlighting the complex legal and constitutional issues involved.
SUMMARY:
No clear winner with both interventions and legal arguments considered
OUTCOMES:
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies
Centre for Justice v. The Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Preserve Marriage Limited OUTBermuda
The Applicant sought judicial review against the constitutionality and/or legality of the Referendum (Same Sex Relationships) Act 2016 and any Referendum held thereunder arguing it contravened fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Human Rights Act 1981. The court examined issues of standing the appropriateness of a referendum on human rights issues and whether the Act and its proposed implementation infringed constitutional rights. The court ultimately refused the application for an injunction to prevent the referendum scheduled for June 23 2016 but granted the relief sought concerning the designation of certain polling rooms highlighting the complex legal and constitutional issues involved.