The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived with dependent family with disabilities, or live in what are known as ‘sanctuary scheme’ homes (accommodation specially adapted to provide protection for women at severe risk of domestic violence). They were all tenants of registered social landlords and they all receive or received HB.
Held: The appeal of Carmichael the appeal succeeded, but the other benefits claimants failed. The standard test in cases involving questions of economic and social policy was whether the discrimination was ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’. How to deal with the impact of Reg B13 on individuals with disabilities was just such a question of economic and social policy; the housing benefit cap scheme was integral to the structure of the welfare benefit scheme. The Court of Appeal was therefore correct to apply this test
Otherwise: Daly and Others, Regina (on the application of) (formerly known as MA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pension
Regina (Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Judges:
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
Citations:
[2016] UKSC 58, [2016] WLR(D) 582, UKSC 2014/0129, [2016] PTSR 1422, (2017) 20 CCL Rep 103, [2016] 1 WLR 4550, [2017] 1 All ER 869, [2016] HRLR 24
Summary
Links:
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summ Video, SC290216 am, SC290216 pm, SC010316 am, SC010316 pm, SC020316 am, SC020316 pm
Statutes:
Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14, Equality Act 2010 149
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Rutherford and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 27-Jan-2016
Challenge to lawfulness of regulations applying a discount to payments of housing benefits when there was deemed to be a spare bedroom.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. . .
At first instance – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 30-Jul-2013
Ten disabled claimants challenged the changes to the 2006 Regulations introduced by the 2012 Regulations. The changes restricted the ability to claim Housing Benefit for bedrooms deemed extra. The claimants said that in their different ways each had . .
Appeal from – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-Feb-2014
The claimants were in recipet of housing benefit. They claimed that the new benefits cap (‘bedroom tax’) discriminated against them when additional space was need for the care of family members with disabilities . .
Cited – Burnip v Birmingham City Council and Another CA 15-May-2012
The court considered an allegation of discrimination in the application of housing benefit for a disabled person.
Held: The claimants had established a prima facie case of discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR, and that the Secretary of . .
Cited – Bracking and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 6-Nov-2013
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decision by the respondent to close the Independent Living Fund.
Held: McCombe LJ summarised the application of section 149 of the 2010 Act: ‘1 . . . .
Cited – JS and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 5-Nov-2013
The claimants challenged the benefits cap introduced under the 2012 Act, saying that it was discriminatory, affecting more women than men. Mr Eadie QC submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State that, as ‘an international instrument with no . .
Cited by:
Cited – McLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Discrimination, Human Rights
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.570982