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
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
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
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
Job-seekers allowance Citations: [2009] UKUT 259 (AAC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Jobseekers Act 1995 19(5)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Benefits Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.410677
Jobseekers allowance Citations: [2010] UKUT 4 (AAC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Jobseekers Act 1995 19 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Benefits Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.410596
The claimant sought benefits. He had a large family which could only be housed in two adjacent houses. His claim for benefit was turned down on the basis that the second house was not regarded as his home, and therefore stood as capital, resulting in his exclusion from benefit. His appeal was allowed, and the … Continue reading Secretary of State for Works and Pensions v Mohammed Miah: CA 25 Jul 2003
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
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a ‘possession’ within the Convention or the discrimination was arbitrary so as to breach the applicants human rights. Held: … Continue reading Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003
The applicant had been detained by the police for 42 hours then released. No charge was made. The applicant had suspended his Job-Seeker’s Allowance for a week. The applicant challenged a tribunal’s finding. Held: The construction of such detention as a physical condition stretched credulity. The applicant was free to suspend benefits. However this appeared … Continue reading Secretary of State for Social Security v David: CA 15 Dec 2000
The applicant had been in receipt of job-seeker’s allowance. And had signed to say he would be available for work without restriction as to the hours or days of such availability. He was arrested and held for 42 hours before release. He was, by virtue of the regulations disentitled to the benefit for the entire … Continue reading Secretary of State for Social Security v David: CA 30 Jan 2001
UTAA Jobseekers allowance – voluntary unemployment – ‘This case raises some interesting and difficult questions about the relevance to the provision in section 19(6)(a) of the Jobseekers Act 1995 for a ‘sanction’ (ie the identification of a period up to 26 weeks for which jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) is not payable) where a claimant has ‘lost … Continue reading AA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: UTAA 15 Mar 2012
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
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
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
