In 2000, Lord Justice Ward, together with Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Robert Walker (now Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe) made the decision to separate conjoined twins Gracie and Rosie Attard, refusing their parents' appeal, despite the fact the weaker twin (Rosie) would certainly die. After the surgery, Rosie died and Gracie Attard survived and returned to her native Malta.
In a landmark ruling on the 21 December 2004, Lord Justice Ward, together with Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lady Justice Arden - on the basis of EU Council Directive 79/7/EEC – also ruled against the Labour Secretary of State of the Department for Work and Pensions on the ground of sex discrimination, when withholding from a separated father with shared care of his child receipt of the appropriate Job Seeker's Allowance child additions (JSA) because he was not in receipt of Child Benefit for his child.
In his judgment Lord Justice Ward stated on the sex discrimination issue at hand:
"The notion that only one parent is to be treated as responsible for his or her child and the other parent is deemed not to be responsible at all is a total anathema to a family lawyer. A cornerstone of the reforming Children Act 1989 is that where the parents were married to each other at his birth each shall have parental responsibility for the child – see s.2(1). Each may act alone and without the other in meeting that responsibility – see s. 2(7). To be forced to treat only one as responsible where there is a shared residence order in force and in operation is grotesque. It is degrading to fathers who actually – and lovingly – tend to their children. A law so framed is so far removed from reality that it brings the law into disrepute and justifiably fuels the passions of protesting fathers. Both the legal position and the current vociferous protests are factors properly to be taken into account and there is no evidence that they, especially the former, have had any or any adequate consideration. There is no justification for social security law to march out of step with the general law and with the instinctive reactions of reasonable mothers and fathers and this is a further reason why no reasonable Secretary of State should tolerate such a demeaning discrimination against fathers."