Click the case name for better results:

Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Department of Work and Pensions: Admn 19 May 2014

Renewed application by the claimant for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the defendant to refer her for a skills conditionality assessment interview and thereafter to participate in a Skills Conditionality Scheme period of training Judges: Mr Justice Foskett Citations: [2014] EWHC 2590 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Jobseekers Act 1995 17A … Continue reading Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Department of Work and Pensions: Admn 19 May 2014

Smith v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 19 Mar 2015

The Appellant had been unemployed and in receipt of JSA for several years. He was required to do work under the MWA scheme, and he did so over four weeks, He commenced judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the MWA Regulations on various grounds. He was eventually given permission on a single ground, namely … Continue reading Smith v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 19 Mar 2015

Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 12 Feb 2013

The claimants complained of the system where they were obliged to work for free to claim Jobseekers Allowance. Held: The 2011 Regulations were required to specify the schemes under which the claimants were to claim. Instead, the regulations had named a scheme of work and the details of it were set out elsewhere. This did … Continue reading Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 12 Feb 2013

Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 6 Aug 2012

The claimants sought judicial review of schemes which they said appeared to require them to work for free in order to claim Jobseekers Allowance. Held: Judicial review was granted. There had been a breach of regulation 4(2) of the 2011 Regulations, because the Secretary of State had breached regulation 4(2), by the failure to provide … Continue reading Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 6 Aug 2012

Van Der Mussele v Belgium: ECHR 23 Nov 1983

There is discrimination only if the cases under comparison are not sufficiently different to justify the difference in treatment. This expressed by saying that the two cases must be in an ‘analogous situation’. The social security system is a ‘system characterised by a corpus of rights and obligations of which it would be artificial to … Continue reading Van Der Mussele v Belgium: ECHR 23 Nov 1983

Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 30 Oct 2013

The Secretary of State appealed against the decision in favour of Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, that the 2011 Regulations, made under section 17A of the 1995 Act, did not comply with the requirements of that section, and (ii) a cross-appeal brought by Miss Reilly and Mr Wilson against the Court of Appeal’s rejection of … Continue reading Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 30 Oct 2013

Reilly (No 2) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 4 Jul 2014

The Claimants sought a declaration of incompatibility, under section 4 of HRA 1998, on the ground that the 2013 Act was incompatible with their rights under Article 6 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Lang J [2014] EWHC 2182 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 420, [2015] 1 QB 573, … Continue reading Reilly (No 2) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 4 Jul 2014