Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 6 Aug 2012

The claimants sought judicial review of schemes which they said appeared to require them to work for free in order to claim Jobseekers Allowance.
Held: Judicial review was granted. There had been a breach of regulation 4(2) of the 2011 Regulations, because the Secretary of State had breached regulation 4(2), by the failure to provide any written notice to Miss Reilly (such breach being admitted), and regulation 4(2)(e), by failing to provide ‘information about the consequences of failing to participate in the Scheme’ to Mr Wilson. The consequence of the breach of regulation 4 was that no sanctions could be lawfully imposed on Miss Reilly or Mr Wilson for failure to participate in the scheme, but the failure did not make it unlawful for the Secretary of State to require an individual to participate in either scheme.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 4(2)

Cited by:

Appeal fromReilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 12-Feb-2013
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 . .
At First InstanceReilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 30-Oct-2013
The Secretary of State appealed against the decision in favour of Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, that the 2011 Regulations, made under section 17A of the 1995 Act, did not comply with the requirements of that section, and (ii) a cross-appeal brought by . .
See AlsoReilly (No 2) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 4-Jul-2014
The Claimants sought a declaration of incompatibility, under section 4 of HRA 1998, on the ground that the 2013 Act was incompatible with their rights under Article 6 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463502