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 the benefit to one parent. He alleged that this was discriminatory under the Convention.
Held: The challenge to the Regulations failed. The purpose of the Regulation was to ensure payment of the benefit to someone with care of the child. The regulation could not be construed so as to allow the benefit to be split. It was not discrimination, since the detriment, such as it was, was applied across the range of potential beneficiaries, and there was insufficient evidence for the court to consider a claim of indirect sex discrimination.
Judges:
Sir Richard Tucker
Citations:
[2002] 2 FLR 1181, Times 29-Aug-2002, Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC 1915 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No 1968) 34, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 144
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Humphreys 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, Human Rights
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.174754
