On 7 May 2026 the Supreme Court handed down the Judgment in Re Dillon. The case was not about employment, but it is relevant to Northern Ireland because it explains how Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework (the “no diminution of rights” commitment) might be used in court.

Background The legal challenge concerned parts of the UK’s Legacy Act (about Troubles-related legacy issues). The question for the Supreme Court was whether any part of that Act should be set aside / disapplied because it conflicted with Article 2(1) of the Windsor Framework.

What Article 2(1) says Article 2(1) requires the UK to ensure there is “no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity” in Northern Ireland, as set out in the “Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity” (RSEO) chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, as a result of Brexit. It also highlights protection against discrimination, referring to six EU Directives.

The six EU Directives referred to Annex 1  in RSEO are:

1. Council Directive 2004/113/EC (13 December 2004) – equal treatment between men and women in access to and supply of goods and services.
2. Directive 2006/54/EC (5 July 2006) – equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women in employment and occupation.
3. Council Directive 2000/43/EC (29 June 2000) – equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.
4. Council Directive 2000/78/EC (27 November 2000) – a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (covering religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation).
5. Directive 2010/41/EU (7 July 2010) – equal treatment between men and women engaged in self‑employment (replacing Council Directive 86/613/EEC).
6. Council Directive 79/7/EEC (19 December 1978) – progressive implementation of equal treatment between men and women in matters of social security.

What the Supreme Court decided (key points)

• This was the first appeal of its kind: the first time the Supreme Court considered an argument to disapply primary legislation using Article 2(1).
• “Direct effect” depends on clarity: the Court said Article 2(1) can only be relied on directly if it creates a clear and precise obligation that does not depend on further action by the UK or the EU.
• In this case the wording relied on was too general: the Court held in this particular case that the precise wording being relied on was too broad (as it had references to civil rights, mutual respect, religious liberties, acknowledging victims’ suffering; and a “right to remember”) to be sufficiently clear and precise and apt to have direct effect.
• However, Article 2(1) could still matter in other cases: the Court said this does not mean Article 2(1) can never have direct effect. In particular, because Article 2(1) refers to these six EU anti‑discrimination Directives (RSEO), it may have more force when read together with one of those more specific measures (even though they were not relevant on the facts of this case).
• The Victims’ Directive point did not succeed on these facts: the Court concluded the immunity provisions were not in breach of Article 2(1). It treated the Victims’ Directive provisions relied on (review of a decision to prosecute and compensation) as aimed at the handling of individual prosecutions, not wider policy questions such as a national immunity scheme.

What this could mean for HR and discrimination claims

Most HR issues will continue to be decided under Northern Ireland’s existing equality framework. However, this Judgment is a reminder of how some may bring a case alleging that the domestic laws should be interpreted in a way compatible with the RSEO Directives, or the domestic law should be disapplied and provisions of EU Directives should have direct effect.

The  tribunal/court could be asked to:

1. Interpret first: argue that a rule should be read in a way that stays compatible with “no diminution” and the discrimination protections tied to Article 2(1).
2. Disapply only as a last resort: if a direct conflict is alleged and it cannot be resolved by interpretation, a claimant may ask the tribunal/court to set aside the incompatible provision. This is exceptional and likely will only be argued in narrow, fact‑specific situations.

What happens next?

We understand that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is closely considering this judgment and what it could mean for how the For Women Scotland Supreme Court decision is applied in Northern Ireland. That earlier decision found that “sex” means biological sex under the Great Britain Equality Act 2010. We will continue to keep members updated as any further guidance or developments emerge.