Issues relating to Job Seekers’ Allowance provide for the risks of unemployment, and fell within the Equal Treatment Directive. The scheme failed to treat equally with his wife, a man who was separated from her, but whose children stayed with him for roughly equal times during the week, and where she received the child benefit, and he was refused the additional benefits to which she was entitled. The Regulations said that the additional benefits would accrue only to somebody who received the child benefit. The fact that the benefit was income not contribution based did not take the benefit out of the Directive.
Judges:
Aldous, Tuckey, Kay LJJ
Citations:
Times 17-May-2001, [2001] 2 CMLR 51, [2001] EWCA Civ 624, [2001] ICR 966
Links:
Statutes:
Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (1996 No 207) 77
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security (No 2) CA 21-Dec-2004
The claimant shared child care with his former partner, but claimed that the system which gave the job-seeker’s child care supplement to one party only was discriminatory.
Held: In such cases the supplement usually went to the mother, and this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Benefits
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147525
