Fascinating case from England & Wales Court of Appeal on challenge to statute penalizing landlords for renting to aliens who do not have the right to rent primary residences—BUT…

brought on behalf of aliens who *do* have such a right (Hello!), because landlords might discriminate against them for fear of contravening the statute.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/542.html

Claim is made under Art. 14 of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR rights to be secured without discrimination on basis of race, etc), the right in question being Art. 8 (respect for private & family life).

TFW when you know the appeal will be allowed (in American: judgment will be reversed)

Observations about English judgments (American: opinions)

1. Common to name counsel & thank them, as well as identifying them (rather than party) as having made a particular argument

2. Even when judgment is agreed to by majority, still often written in first person singular…

3. No wonder appellate hearing (oral argument) took three days

[4. Also, spot the typo, though I wouldn't say that's typically English]

British statutory drafting, Part 1. Note use of "P" and "relevant" in "relevant national," with "relevant national" being defined later in section. Both usages (letter of alphabet assigned to persons/entities for clarity & "relevant X") are typical here.

British statutory drafting, Part 2. This style is also typical. Still seems odd to my American eyes, but it works. I wouldn't mind our legislatures & rulemaking agencies using these techniques as appropriate; I find them quite clear.

Eat your heart out, INS v. Chadha (coincidentally also an immigration case)

The Home Office conducted something very like an APA notice-&-comment process *before* the statute was passed. (It also carried out a similar consultation before adopting secondary legislation (regs) after statute was passed)

Although the Act has nationwide validity, this part of it was put into effect piecemeal.

Research done by gov't & NGOs, discussed at paras 29-43, is really interesting in trying to tease apart the related issues of discrimination on basis of race & discrimination on basis of nationality. Gov't research didn't really distinguish, but some NGOs did.

NB Article 14 of the ECHR requires ECHR rights to be secured without discrimination on grounds of either race or national origin (as well as sex, religion, etc)

I find this phrase cute, for some reason. I continue to struggle with understanding which legislation applies to which nations. Here—I think—the Act applies to all four, but the Home Office has power to limit its application & has limited it to England but plans to extend it.

As I was saying, where an American judge would say, "Party A argues," judges here attribute arguments to counsel. Counsel "submits," rather than "argues." And if counsel has been knighted, he will be referred to by first name only.

Also as I was saying. I think this is probably right, in light of the research as the Court of Appeal summarized it.

Appellate shade towards the trial judge, British style.