One Tradition, Two Realities: Legal Protections for Same-Sex Couples in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong

Introduction

The legal recognition and protection of same-sex couples differ significantly across common law jurisdictions. Despite sharing a common legal heritage, lawmakers in individual jurisdictions often adopt divergent approaches, shaped by cultural norms and societal attitudes. This essay critically examines how such distinctions manifest in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, focusing on the legal treatment of same-sex marriage and civil partnerships, and analyses the structural differences in their legal frameworks.

Legal Recognition of Same-sex Marriage and Civil Partnerships

Same-sex marriage has been legal across the UK since 2014 in England, Wales, and Scotland, with Northern Ireland following in 2020. Civil partnerships, introduced in 2005, offer a legally equivalent alternative to marriage for same-sex couples. Through the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, same-sex couples are afforded equal access to a broad spectrum of legal rights and protections, including inheritance, taxation and visas. These legislative developments reflect a significant advancement in UK equality law and underscore a broader commitment to the inclusion and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Yet, under Hong Kong law, same-sex couples are neither permitted to marry nor form civil partnerships. Instead, they are offered merely piecemeal legal protections, such as limited rights concerning inheritance, access to public housing and eligibility for spousal visas [1]. In September 2025, the Legislative Council rejected the Same-sex Partnerships Bill, which would have granted minimal rights to same-sex couples married overseas, including the right to make medical decisions for their partner and the right to participate in funeral and cremation arrangements. The Legislative Council ran counter to prevailing public sentiment and directly contravened a 2023 ruling by the Court of Final Appeal, which had ordered the government with a positive obligation to establish an ‘alternative legal framework’ to safeguard the rights of same-sex couples [2].

Notably, under the UK Civil Partnership Act 2004, individuals holding British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) status — including Hong Kong residents — are entitled to register for a civil partnership while residing in the UK. This legal recognition affords them access to a wide array of rights and protections under UK law. However, these rights do not extend to their lives in Hong Kong, where the local government does not recognise same-sex civil partnerships or marriages even if validly registered overseas. This contrast reflects the tension between the UK’s inclusive legal framework and Hong Kong’s restrictive approach to LGBTQ+ rights, revealing the limits of transnational legal recognition in the face of entrenched political resistance.

Differences in Legal Frameworks

The UK has an extensive legal framework for same-sex couples, offering protections through both legislation and judicial interpretation. UK courts have consistently upheld and expanded LGBTQ+ rights by reinforcing equality under the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 and the Equality Act (EA) 2010. The HRA protects these rights by incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, primarily through Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Individual rights are better protected under the HRA since the interpretation and enforcement of legislation must be compatible with Convention rights.

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza illustrates this through s.3 HRA, where judges interpreted a phrase under the Rent Act 1977 contrary to its ordinary meaning to include same-sex couples to comply with Article 8 ECHR [3]. Meanwhile, the EA consolidates previous anti-discrimination laws, creating a unified legal framework that protects individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, from discrimination, harassment and victimisation in areas beyond the workplace, including education and services. Together, these statutes form the backbone of the UK’s strong legal protections for same-sex couples, codifying equality and inclusion.

In contrast, Hong Kong offers limited legal recognition in protecting LGBTQ+ rights, primarily through judicial intervention rather than legislative clarity. The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance incorporates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into domestic law. However, it does not include explicit provisions that protect same-sex couples, resulting in fragmented rights from a lack of formal recognition. Instead, positive rulings by the Court of Final Appeal allowed same-sex couples to settle and work in Hong Kong without fear of eviction or unfair treatment in respect of spousal benefits. It held that denying a domestic dependant visa for a same-sex spouse whose partnership was registered abroad was unlawful discrimination [4], and that a same-sex couple’s overseas marriage must be recognised for civil-servant spousal benefits and joint tax-filing status in Hong Kong [5] [6].

The incremental expansion of rights has largely been the result of persistent advocacy and litigation efforts by LGBTQ+ activists, yet the absence of a cohesive statutory framework due to the enduring influence of local conservatism creates legal uncertainty for such individuals.

Conclusion

The legal treatment of same-sex couples in the UK and Hong Kong reveals a stark divergence in how common law jurisdictions can evolve under differing cultural, political, and societal influences. As global norms shift toward equality, Hong Kong faces a pivotal choice: whether to remain confined to a fragmented framework, or to embrace reform that guarantees the rights of all its citizens.

References

[1] Hong Kong Marriage Ordinance (Cap. 181), s40

[2] Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice [2023] HKCFA 28

[3] [2004] UKHL 30

[4] QT v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCFA 28

[5] Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service [2019] 22 HKCFAR 127

[6] Holning Lau, Kelley Loper, Yiu Tung Suen, ‘Support in Hong Kong for Same-sex Couples’ Rights Grew Over Ten Years (2013-2023): 60 Percent Now Support Same-Sex Marriage’ (2023) <https://law.unc.edu/wp- content/uploads/2023/05/Change-Over-Time-Report-2023-FINAL-English.pdf>