'M' v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 30 July 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 356 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether a transsexual appellant should have been treated as a woman for pensionable‑age and Class 1 NIC purposes from June 2004 (or surgery in Dec 2005) or only from issuance of a full Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in December 2006. The Tribunal held that, as a matter of statutory interpretation and having regard to precedent, the relevant pensions and NICs legislation read with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 meant her acquired gender was recognised for these purposes only from issue of the full GRC, so she remained liable to pay NICs until then. The claim for earlier cessation of liability was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (s.9 and sch.5 para.7) establishes that a person's acquired gender is treated as their legal gender "for all purposes" only upon the issue of a full GRC; accordingly, the terms "man" and "woman" in the pensions/NICs legislation cannot be read to recognise an acquired gender for pensionable‑age purposes prior to a full GRC. Where domestic statutory recognition criteria exist, EU law under Directive 79/7 does not permit domestic courts to replace those criteria unless there was effectively no national means of recognition prior to the Directive's application.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal observed (obiter) that the Human Rights Court's margin of appreciation may leave the adequacy of national recognition criteria largely for the state to fix unless the criteria are a plainly insincere or extreme failing; and noted that Schlumpf indicates an inflexible two‑year rule can be disproportionate in some factual contexts, though that case differed materially from the present facts.