judicial review

  • Two child limit challenge

    Last updated: June 11, 2018
    test case

    The substantive challenge to the two child policy is now being appealed to the Court of Appeal and a request made for the matter to be expedited so as to be heard by the end of 2018.

    On 18 August 2017, CPAG issued a claim for judicial review in the High Court against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) to challenge the two child limit, introduced by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. Permission was granted on 17 October 2017 and the case was heard across two days on 6 and 7 February 2018.  Judgment was given on 20 April 2018 allowing the challenge in part.  The Court accepted CPAG's arguments that the ordering restriction on the kinship care exception was perverse and therefore unlawful.  The wider challenge to the policy as a whole was dismissed.  CPAG is appealing this aspect of the case to the Court of Appeal while the DWP has confirmed it will not appeal the finding on the ordering restricton and will be removing this restriction from both the kinship care and adopted children exceptions . Read the judgment and our statement about the judgment.

  • Bedroom tax - children who require overnight care - R(Rutherford and Todd) v SSWP UKSC 0029/2016

    Last updated: May 24, 2017
    test case

    Update 09/11/2016: the Supreme Court has dismissed the DWP's appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminates against families in the position of the Rutherfords. The judgment is available from the Supreme Court website. For more information, see also our press release CPAG wins Supreme Court bedroom tax breakthrough.

  • Benefit cap – CPAG intervention – R(SG and others) v SSWP formerly JS and others

    Last updated: March 18, 2015
    test case

    This case was heard in the Supreme Court on 29 and 30 April 2014. The court handed down judgment on Wednesday 18 March.  Read our press release.

  • Judicial Review: proposals for reform - CPAG's response to the Ministry of Justice consultation

    January 2013
    briefing

    In January 2013, the Ministry of Justice conducted a consultation excerise on its proposals for reform of judicial review. Judicial review is a critical check on the power of the state, providing an effective mechanism for challenging the decisions of public bodies to ensure that they are lawful.

    CPAG believes that the proposals in the consultation will damage access to justice and the rule of law, while there is no evidence that they will achieve the government’s aims of reducing the burden on public services or removing the unnecessary obstacles to economic recovery.

  • Judicial review


    training course

    Judicial review is an essential tool for challenging decisions that affect benefit and tax credit claimants where there is no right of appeal. This interactive course gives advisers and lawyers a clear understanding of its potential use and helps them to develop their skills in challenging unlawful decision-making.

    Read more
    Dates:
  • CPAG responds to Ministry of Justice consultation on judicial review

    25 January 2013
    news

    CPAG believes that the government's proposals to limit judicial review will damage access to justice and the rule of law. Read our submission.

    Read more
  • Supreme Court to decide on ‘unlawful’ bedroom tax


    Share

    Following last month’s victory in the Court of Appeal, the battle continues for Paul and Sue Rutherford and their severely disabled grandson, Warren. The Court held that the ‘bedroom tax’ (or under-occupancy penalty) is in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, unlawfully discriminating against disabled children requiring overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in Sanctuary Scheme Homes (in the case of ‘A’). The Government was quick to appeal this decision. We have been representing the Rutherford family since 2013 and will be in the Supreme Court defending the Court of Appeal’s decision from 29 February. SSWP v Rutherfords has been joined with other bedroom tax cases, MA & Others and A.

  • The Future of Judicial Review

    Speech to the Human Rights Lawyers' Association 26 June 2014

    It’s hardly surprising that politicians tend not to like having the lawfulness of their decisions questioned by the Courts. Like any frustrated litigant, when a Minister loses a judicial review case he or she is more likely to blame the judge than their own decision-making, whereas when they win, they’re quick to criticise the Claimant for bringing the case in the first place.