The claimant received a UK state pension. She lived in South Africa, and challenged the exclusion of foreign resident pensioners from the annual uprating of pension benefits. She asserted that the state pension, or its uprating, were pecuniary rights, and were therefore possessions within the Convention.
Held: It was difficult to distinguish the appellant’s case from the position in Corner, which had already been rejected in the European Court of Human Rights. The decision to exclude such pensioners from the increase in benefits was a political decision, being an allocation of resources affecting foreign relations. It was not a judicial decision. As to what constituted discrimination: ‘[I]s the basis for the treatment of the complainant as against the chosen comparators based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language . . .. or other status within the meaning of Art. 14?’
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Times 24-May-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002, [2002] EWHC 978 (Admin), [2002] 3 All ER 994
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 14 First Protocol Art 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – JW and EW v United Kingdom ECHR 1982
The Commission considered a complaint that the UK government’s failure to pay an uprated pension infringed the pensioner’s Convention rights. The applicants were emigrating to Australia. The Commission rejected the complaint as inadmissible, saying . .
Cited – Corner v United Kingdom ECHR 1984
The Commission considered a complaint as to the UK government’s failure to pay an uprated pension to an applicant who had emigrated to South Africa. The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s complaint that the failure to pay . .
Cited – Havard v United Kingdom ECHR 1997
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Isle of Anglesey County Council v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Oct-2003
The claimant council sought re-imbursement from the Secretary of the excess housing benefit payments it had made to claimants. The system expected the Council to have made referrals of high rents to rent officers. The respondent had decided that it . .
Cited – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
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 . .
At first instance – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
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 . .
At First Instance – Carson and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 4-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) Pensioners who had moved abroad complained that they had been excluded from the index-linked uprating of pensions given to pensioners living in England.
Held: This was not an infringement of their human rights. Differences in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Benefits
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.171264