judicial review

  • Two child limit challenge

    Last updated: October 17, 2017
    test case

    Update - 17 October 2017 - permission has been granted for CPAG to apply for judicial review of the two child limit and the case will now go forward to a full hearing.

    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.

    On 6 April 2017, new rules came into force limiting the child element of child tax credit (CTC) and universal credit (UC) awards to two children. In CTC, this limit only applies to a third or subsequent child born on or after 6 April 2017; in UC the limit applies from 6 April 2017 (irrespective of when the child was born) though transitional protection applies to third or subsequent children born before 6 April 2017. There are a limited number of exceptions to this 2 child limit meaning that it does not apply to a third or subsequent child in the following circumstances: multiple births, adoption from local authority care, kinship care and children likely to have been conceived as a result of rape or a coercive or controlling relationship.

  • 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.