The claimants were lone parents of children of various ages. They complained that a benefits cap imposed by the respondent affected them unfairly.
Held: ‘No one should underestimate the very real hardships caused by the imposition of the cap, and the particular circumstances of the individual claimants in this case bear witness to the harsh circumstances in which they and those similarly placed live, as does detailed evidence from Shelter. But they are difficulties which have to be borne by all non-working households to a greater or lesser extent; they are not unique to this cohort, nor does the cap necessarily bear more harshly on them. There is no linear relationship between the financial impact on families caused by the cap and the age of the children. Indeed, it is obvious . . that households with a greater number of children will typically suffer more, whatever the age of their children, simply because the parent or parents have more mouths to feed and are likely to need larger accommodation . . It follows that the proper focus in this case must be whether the problems faced by the particular cohort of parents in securing effective and affordable child care are sufficiently different from problems facing other lone parents to entitle the court to conclude that it is manifestly without reasonable foundation to fail to exempt them from the operation of the cap . . ‘
Judges:
Sir Brian Leveson P, McCombe J, Sir Patrick Elias
Citations:
[2018] EWCA Civ 504, [2018] WLR(D) 168
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Discrimination
Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.606472