SSWP v AT (AIRE Centre and IMA Intervening)  UKUT 330 (AAC); SSWP v AT  EWCA Civ 1307
Judgment of the Upper Tribunal three judge panel dismissing the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was given on 12 December 2022. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal The case was heard in the Court of Appeal from 8 - 10 March 2023. A further hearing took place on 10 October 2023. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was handed down on 8 November 2023, dismissing the appeal. The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and this was refused on 7 February 2024, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s judgment is now final.
AM v SSWP (UC)  UKUT 242 (AAC); Abdul Miah (by his litigation friend Mashuq Miah) (Respondent) v SSWP (Court of Appeal ref: CA-2023-000313)
Judgment of the Upper Tribunal three judge panel was given on 01 September 2022. The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on 24 November 2022. The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal on 20 January 2023. However, the Secretary of State was granted permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal (Lewis LJ) on 19 April 2023. Meanwhile however, the Secretary of State has issued guidance instructing decision makers to apply the judgment (see below). The SSWP's appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal (Underhill LJ, Whipple LJ and Davies LJ) on 7 November 2023. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is awaited.
R (Bui) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (Onakoya v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  UK 189 AAC;  EWCA Civ 566
This is a challenge to the policy of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) that she will not make payments of universal credit (UC) or advances unless and until a claimant has a national insurance number (the ‘NINo Rule’). The judicial reviews were unsuccessful at first instance but the claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal on 30 March 2023 and judgment was given in favour of the claimants on 25 May 2023. The Court of Appeal refused SSWP's application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on 13/06/2023 and SSWP made an application to the Supreme Court. On 18/10/2023, the Supreme Court refused SSWP's application for permission to appeal.
In a judgment of 15 May 2023 the Upper Tribunal ruled that an EEA national who was a carer for his disabled wife who was in receipt of income related ESA, in circumstances where the amount of ESA decreased due to his presence in the household (loss of some premiums and taking account of carer's allowance more than offset increase to couple rates), had a right to reside as a self sufficient person. When the couple then claimed universal credit, the additional cost of £347.07 a month which awarding that benefit to the couple rather than just awarding it to his British wife as a single person, along with the cost of similar such claims which would also now fall to be allowed, was not an unreasonable burden on the UK social assistance system and therefore the claimant continued to have a right to reside as a self sufficient person and was therefore entitled to a joint award of universal credit.
R (Pantellerisco and others) v SSWP  EWHC 1944 (Admin); R (Pantellerisco and others) v SSWP  EWCA Civ 1454
On 12 September 2019, CPAG issued judicial review proceedings on behalf of a single parent and her children challenging the application of the benefit cap to the mother’s universal credit award. The cap is applied to the mother despite the fact that she works 16 hours per week at national living wage, simply because she is paid 4 weekly rather than monthly. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on 5 December 2019 and the case was heard on 12 May 2020. Judgment was given on 20 July 2020 with the court finding in the claimants' favour. The SSWP appealed to the Court of Appeal and judgment was given on 8 October 2021, allowing the SSWP's appeal. Ms Pantellerisco applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on 1/12/21 and this was refused by order dated 04/08/22.
This case concerned entitlement to widowed parent’s allowance (WPA) where the appellant and her partner had undergone a religious ceremony some years prior to his death and considered themselves to be, and held themselves out as being, legally married but were not in fact married under English law. The First-tier Tribunal found that the appellant had no entitlement to WPA as she did not meet the marriage requirement, and permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was refused, first by the FtT and then, on renewal, by the UT itself. Following a successful Cart style judicial review of the decision not to allow permission to appeal, the case was remitted to the UT for a decision on the WPA entitlement. The case was heard in the UT before a three judge panel on 13/02/20 and, on 26/05/20, the UT dismissed the appeal.
R (on the application of) DK v The Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Interested Party)  EWHC 1845 (Admin);  EWCA Civ 120
Current status: The High Court heard the case on 16 June 2021 and handed down judgment in favour of the claimant on 5 July 2021. HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal and a hearing took place on 25 January 2022. The Court of Appeal dismissed HMRC's appeal and judgment was handed down on 8 February 2022 ( EWCA Civ 120).
Fratila and another (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant)  UKSC 53
CPAG brought judicial review proceedings on behalf of two EU nationals, a severely disabled man and his carer, who were refused universal credit on the basis that their limited leave to remain in the UK under Appendix EU to the immigration rules (‘pre-settled status’) was not a qualifying right of residence for the purposes of means-tested benefits. On 27 April 2020, the High Court dismissed the claim. The Claimants sought permission to appeal and, following the grant of permission by the Court of Appeal, the Court found in favour of the Appellants/Claimants in a judgment handed down on 18 December 2020. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile on 15 July 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a judgment which the parties in the case brought by CPAG accept is binding on the Supreme Court, ruled that it was not unlawfully discriminatory to have such a rule (i.e. that the basis on which the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal was wrong). The Supreme Court gave a final decision allowing the Secretary of State's appeal on 1 December 2021.
This was a challenge to the two child limit, introduced by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, which restricts support for children in families claiming child tax credit or universal credit to the first two children (subject to limited exceptions). The limit applies to families where the third or subsequent child is born after 5 April 2017. The legal challenge was partially successful in the High Court but an appeal to the Court of Appeal on the lawfulness of the overall policy was unsuccessful. An appeal to the Supreme Court was heard remotely across 20-22 October 2020 and judgment given on 9 July 2021 dismissing the appeal. Complaints were filed with the European Court of Human Rights (Dec 2021) on behalf of three different families.
R (Johnson, Woods, Barrett & Stewart) v SSWP  EWHC 23 (Admin); SSWP v Johnson, Woods, Barrett & Stewart  EWCA Civ 778
This case successfully challenged the rigidity of the monthly assessment period regime under universal credit (UC) and the way that earned income is calculated for certain claimants. The case concerned four single working mothers whose regular monthly pay dates for their wages fell close to the start/end of their assessment periods, resulting in them sometimes having two paydays in one assessment period. This issue caused them to experience fluctuations of their income and significant cash losses.