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 had a diverse impact on men. It was for the Secretary of State to justify the discrimination. He had not done so. The rule was indirectly discriminatory against fathers; and the link with child benefit could not be justified. Treating only one parent as responsible in a shared care situation could not be justified.


Ward LJ, Arden LJ, Scott Baker LJ


[2004] EWCA Civ 1749, Times 04-Jan-2005, [2005] IRLR 471, [2005] 1 FCR 286, [2005] Eu LR 385, [2005] 1 FLR 1009, [2005] Fam Law 464




Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, Equal Treatment dDirective 79/7/EEC A4, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 141


England and Wales


CitedSeymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another ECJ 9-Feb-1999
Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and . .
CitedRegina (Barber) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 17-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged the refusal of the respondent, under authority of the regulations, to divide payment of child benefit between himself and his former partner. The child stayed with both parents. Other benefits flowed from the allocation of . .
CitedInge Nolte v Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover ECJ 14-Dec-1995
Europa Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that persons in employment which is . .
CitedIngrid Rinner-Kuehn v Fww Spezial-Gebaudereinigung Gmbh and Co. Kg ECJ 13-Jul-1989
The Court heard a complaint about a German statute providing that an employer need not pay sick pay to a part-time worker. In at least seven member states part-time workers were predominantly women (the percentages ranging from 89% in the Federal . .
CitedMegner and Scheffel v Innungskrankenkasse Vorderpfalz ECJ 14-Dec-1995
The mere fact that the legislative provision affects far more women than men at work cannot be regarded as a breach of Article 119 of the Treaty. . .
CitedJorgensen v Foreningen Speciallaeger and another ECJ 6-Apr-2000
Mrs Jorgensen, a specialist rheumatologist, complained about a rule which meant that, if she sold her practice, it would, because of its turnover, be treated as a part-time practice and subject to a cap on the fees it could receive from the Danish . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from . .
See AlsoHockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 2-May-2001
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedHumphreys v Revenue and Customs SC 16-May-2012
Separated parents shared the care of their child. The father complained that all the Child Tax Credit was given to the mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the rule does happen to be indirectly discriminatory against fathers, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221015