Lord Pannick QC accepts that if the first argument fails, Director’s the Policy may be said to involve the third, indirect, category of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This is because the criterion of a QT’s dependant having to be a party to a marriage which satisfies the requirements of a valid marriage under Hong Kong law, cannot be met by homosexual persons and therefore makes them ineligible for dependant visas by reason of their sexual orientation. That concession suffices for purposes. However, it is also QT’s submitted on her behalf that she faces both direct and discrimination. Thlimmenos She argues that she suffers direct discrimination as a result of the Director not treating like cases alike when polygamous marriages are taken as the comparator. Thus, Mr is that under the Policy, a Hong Wong’s evidence “where Kong resident has more than one spouse residing outside Hong Kong, only one of them should be allowed to take up residence in Hong Kong as the sponsor’s The Policy therefore treats a party to a polygamous union which dependant”. would plainly be invalid as a marriage under Hong Kong law as eligible for a dependant visa, but excludes QT on the ground of such invalidity. Like cases are therefore wrongly being treated unlike to disadvantage. QT’s case on discrimination is a reaction to the Thlimmenos QT’s argument that there is no discrimination since the Policy treats Director’s unmarried opposite-sex couples in the same way. Her submission is that such equal treatment is discriminatory since such opposite-sex couples are in a materially different situation. Whereas civil partners have made a public commitment to be life partners, unmarried straight couples have not and may be in a transient relationship. More importantly, unmarried opposite-sex couples can get married and bring themselves within the Policy, while homosexual civil partners cannot. Unlike cases are wrongly being treated alike to prejudice. QT’s
Lord Pannick QC accepts that if the Director’s first argument fails, the Policy may be said to involve the third, indirect, category of discrimination on the basis of QT’s sexual orientation. This is because the criterion of a dependant having to be a party to a marriage which satisfies the requirements of a valid marriage under Hong Kong law, cannot be met by homosexual persons and therefore makes them ineligible for dependant visas by reason of their sexual orientation. That concession suffices for QT’s purposes. However, it is also submitted on her behalf that she faces both direct and Thlimmenos discrimination. She argues that she suffers direct discrimination as a result of the Director not treating like cases alike when polygamous marriages are taken as the comparator. Thus, Mr Wong’s evidence is that under the Policy, “where a Hong Kong resident has more than one spouse residing outside Hong Kong, only one of them should be allowed to take up residence in Hong Kong as the sponsor’s dependant”. The Policy therefore treats a party to a polygamous union which would plainly be invalid as a marriage under Hong Kong law as eligible for a dependant visa, but excludes QT on the ground of such invalidity. Like cases are therefore wrongly being treated unlike to QT’s disadvantage. QT’s case on Thlimmenos discrimination is a reaction to the Director’s argument that there is no discrimination since the Policy treats unmarried opposite-sex couples in the same way. Her submission is that such equal treatment is discriminatory since such opposite-sex couples are in a materially different situation. Whereas civil partners have made a public commitment to be life partners, unmarried straight couples have not and may be in a transient relationship. More importantly, unmarried opposite-sex couples can get married and bring themselves within the Policy, while homosexual civil partners cannot. Unlike cases are wrongly being treated alike to QT’s prejudice.