Secretary of State for Social Security v Walter: CA 6 Dec 2001

Where a full time student became pregnant and had to suspend her studies, the regulations still treated her as a student, and disentitled her from benefits. The claimant alleged that this was sex discrimination.
Held: It was not. The starting point had to be that the Regulations made no explicit distinction between a man and a woman, nor with whether a woman was pregnant or not. She claimed that she had suffered a detriment and that since it was associated with her benefit it was discriminatory. Not everything which affected pregnant women was discriminatory.


Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Keene


Times 13-Dec-2001, Gazette 06-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1913




Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 207), Equal Treatment Directive 79/7/EEC (OJ 1979 L6/24)


England and Wales


CitedWebb v EMO Air Cargo ECJ 14-Jul-1994
Community Law protects women from dismissal during pregnancy save in exceptional circumstances. It was discriminatory to dismiss a female not on a fixed term contract for pregnancy. The Court rejected an interpretation of the Directive that would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167841