The recent Supreme Court decision allowing unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to adopt, is interesting for a few reasons.

Firstly, for all the discussion over the recent addition of sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act, this case was primarily decided on the ground of marital status, which was already in the Human Rights Act.

The Court found that there was direct discrimination on the grounds of marital status, in that two unmarried people were unable to jointly adopt a child.

The court then found in addition that there was indirect discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, as same-sex marriage is not recognised and so a same-sex couple has no means of accessing adoption services. Although the case will be particularly significant for same-sex couples, it will also assist different-sex couples who have legitimate reasons for not marrying, who either wish to adopt or who, due to fertility issues, are required to use a donor or surrogate and face issues regarding legal parentage.

The case may also have international significance. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has previously refused to accept that restricting adoption to married couples amounts to discrimination against same-sex couples (ie couples who are unable to marry). Mr Justice Hellman said he could not understand the rational basis for the ECtHR’s decision, and quoted approvingly a legal commentator who had said that the ECtHR’s approach would strike many people as perverse or obtuse. Courts in other commonwealth jurisdictions such as Gibraltar and Northern Ireland have already declined to follow the ECtHR’s approach on this issue, but without quite saying that the ECtHR had got it wrong.

Bermuda is a contracting party (through the UK) to the European Convention on Human Rights, and so the decisions of its Supreme Court carry weight for the ECtHR. Mr Justice Hellman’s cogent and well-reasoned disagreement with the ECtHR may well help to persuade judges who sit in that court, which could enhance the rights of same-sex couples throughout the entire European continent and in the overseas territories of European nations. The case is a real step in the right direction for Bermuda, and will enhance international respect for Bermuda’s rule of law. Bermudians can feel proud that our civilised and humane system of laws can produce a legal precedent with positive effects potentially flowing far from our shores.

•Peter Sanderson is a barrister in the litigation department of Wakefield Quin Limited. He represented the successful plaintiffs in the action.