The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the claimant? Held: A finding that a Convention right has been infringed, including a … Continue reading Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark: CA 16 Oct 2003
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of family relationships in section 113 was not exhaustive. … Continue reading Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 6 Mar 2002
The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK. Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations were indirectly discriminatory. There was not an exact correspondence between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups and the protected … Continue reading Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 16 Mar 2011
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life. Held: The parts of DNA used for testing are not generally capable of revealing medical information about … Continue reading S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper: HL 22 Jul 2004
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
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused’s human rights was to … Continue reading Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK. Held: The refusals of permission had not infringed the rights of the women and of their husbands to respect for … Continue reading Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s allowance payable to those under 25. Held: (Lord Carswell dissented in part.) The claims failed. The … Continue reading Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same: HL 26 May 2005
The appellant had been tried for and acquitted on a criminal charge. He now challenged the disclosure by the respondent of the charge in an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate.
Held: His appeal failed. The critical question was whether the . .
Department for Work and Pensions purported to stop unemployment credits, mistakenly treating them as a type of jobseeker’s allowance. Department for Work and Pensions treated unemployment credits under 8A Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975 . .
The Court was asked whether, in the context of awarding Jobseeker’s Allowance, the State has unjustifiably interfered with the right of transgender persons to have information about their gender reassignment kept private.
Held: The appeal . .
Jobseekers Allowance – Claims and Payments : Late Claim: Other Benefits . .
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