“Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush are entitled, expeditiously, to legal protection in the Cayman Islands which is functionally equivalent to marriage,” the court said, and if they don’t get it from the local lawmakers, the UK needs to impose the necessary law.

Although the judges said they were “driven to conclude” that government’s appeal should be allowed, as they handed down their 37-page written judgment on Thursday, they said it would be “wholly unacceptable for this declaration to be ignored”, and that there was no justification for further delay or prevarication, even though government has been been well aware for more than four years that it was in breach of its own Bill of Rights as well as the European Convention.

The ruling was in response to an appeal by government in August to the Grand Court judgment by Chief Justice Anthony Smellie, who legalised same-sex marriage by amending the law from the bench after hearing the civil and human rights case brought by Day and Bodden. For several years before bring their case the couple had tried to get the Cayman Islands Government to provide equivalent legislation to marriage to enable them to legally settle here with their child.

While the Attorney General’s Chambers had accepted during the course of this appeal that they must accommodate same-sex unions, government has so far refused to provide the legislation. However, since the appeal court did not give the CIG a specific timeline as to when it must act, despite the order, the status quo could remain until the governor intervenes.

Responding to the ruling, Ben Tonner, who represented Day and Bodden throughout, said that they would take time to reflect on the judgment. They noted that the court had acknowledged that government’s “longstanding and continuing failure” to provide protection to couples like Day and Bodden is a violation of their rights, describing the ongoing situation as “woeful”. But they were disappointed with the more conservative approach taken by the appeal court.

“Although the Court of Appeal has stated that an equivalent framework to marriage is required without delay, it has also decided that the government may continue to deny same-sex couples access to marriage itself, ” Tonner stated after the ruling was handed to the parties.

“In doing so, it takes a more conservative view than the chief justice, who earlier this year had ruled that the indignities to which the petitioners and their daughter have been subjected should be put to an immediate end by the court amending the Marriage Law,” he added.

Tonner said his clients are mindful that they could appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and will be considering that option, as he extended their thanks to everyone who has supported them throughout this historic case.