Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The claimants challenged elements of the Housing Benefit regulations imposing caps on amounts payable. Collins J [2015] EWHC 3382 (Admin) Bailii Welfare Reform Act 2012 96 97, Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 6 Benefits, Housing Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555039
Judges: Swift J Citations: [2020] EWHC 998 (Admin), [2020] WLR(D) 253 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Immigration Act 1971 3(2), Welfare Reform Act 2012 3(1) 4(1)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Benefits, Immigration Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650728
The claim relates to the revised Benefit Cap which (among other exemptions) requires the parent in order to avoid the imposition of the cap to work at least 16 hours per week. The Benefit Cap was originally imposed by Sections 96 and 97 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. These have been amended by the … Continue reading DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 22 Jun 2017
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory. Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to encourage claimants back into work. It was said that thus contradicted the other policy of providing no free … Continue reading DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 May 2019
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H. Held: W’s appeal failed. ‘What the … Continue reading Owens v Owens: CA 24 Mar 2017
Consultation requirements The claimant challenged a decision of the respondent reducing the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme reducing Council Tax for those in need, saying that the Council’s consultation had been inadequate. Held: The consultation was procedurally unfair because the consultation documentation gave a misleading impression in failing to mention other ways of … Continue reading Moseley, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey: SC 29 Oct 2014
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had become clear that a continued investigation would threaten co-operation between the UK and Saudi … Continue reading Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office: HL 30 Jul 2008