The claimants alleged that the way they were treated as widowers under the benefits subjected them to discrimination.
Held: The continued payment of widow’s pension was objectively justified.
Judges:
Moses J
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 191 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the application of Smith) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council and another Admn 19-Nov-2002
The applicants sought to argue that the attempt to evict him from the caravan site he occupied infringed his article 8 and 14 rights. Though the Isaacs case had decided there was good reason to deny security, he argued that was no longer applicable, . .
Appeal from – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 18-Jun-2003
The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal . .
At first instance – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Benefits, Human Rights
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168033
