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 be recalculated without making the under-occupancy deduction of 14%. There is nothing unconstitutional about a public authority, court or tribunal disapplying a provision of subordinate legislation which would otherwise result in their acting incompatibly with a Convention right, where this is necessary in order to comply with the HRA. Subordinate legislation is subordinate to the requirements of an Act of Parliament. The HRA is an Act of Parliament and its requirements are clear and draws a clear and careful distinction between primary and subordinate legislation.
Judges:
Lady Hale, President, Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden
Citations:
[2019] UKSC 52, [2019] 1 WLR 6430, [2019] WLR(D) 638, [2020] HLR 8, (2020) 171 BMLR 37, [2020] 2 All ER 477
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Benefit and Universal Credit (Size Criteria) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2017
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
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 . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v DL and Another (HB) UTAA 28-Aug-2018
Housing and Council Tax Benefits – Payments That Are Eligible for HB . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Burnip v Birmingham City Council and Another CA 15-May-2012
Disability is a prohibited ground for discrimination
Henderson J said: ‘ . . it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between the benefits which Mr Burnip was entitled to claim for his subsistence, and those which he was entitled to claim in . .
Cited – Francis v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 10-Nov-2005
The applicant had sought payment of a ‘Sure Start’ maternity grant. She had obtained a residence order in respect of her sister’s baby daughter who had been taken into care. She said that a payment would have been made to the partner of a mother or . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carmichael and Another CA 20-Mar-2018
The court considered the aproach after the rule under which Housing Benefits had been decided had been declared unlawful. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carmichael and Sefton BC (HB) UTAA 27-Apr-2017
Housing and Council Tax Benefits – Rent Restrictions – Regulation B13 (‘bedroom tax’ or ‘spare room subsidy’) – claimant and disabled wife unable to share same bedroom owing to wife’s disability needs; FTT should have directed local authority to . .
Cited – Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Jul-2015
The claimant a boy of three in receipt of disability living allowance (‘DLA’) challenged (through his parents) the withdrawal of that benefit whilst he was in hospital for a period of more than 12 weeks. He had since died.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – JT v First-Tier Tribunal CA 24-Jul-2018
The claimant had been sexually abused as a child. Her claim for criminal injuries compensation had been refused under the ‘same roof’ rule.
Held: Her appeal was allowed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Human Rights
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.643908
