Legal test cases

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. The Secretary of State appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 29 November 2024

This is a challenge to the non-consensual conception exception ordering rule within the two-child limit. The application for judicial review was initially refused permission on the papers. At a renewal hearing on 10 October 2024, the High Court granted permission for the case to go to a substantive hearing.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether VB, a Norwegian national with pre-settled status, had a right to reside for the purposes of claiming Universal Credit because she was i) a self-employed person, ii) a self-sufficient person with comprehensive sickness insurance, and iii) had retained worker status.

PR claimed UC as part of a mixed-age couple after her ESA award (with support component) ended when she reached pension age. Despite having been previously recognised by DWP as having LCW and LCWRA, she was subject to the application of the three month delay before the LCWRA element became payable in her UC award. The UT found that regulation 28(1) (and to the extent that it is necessary, regulation 28(2)) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 discriminated against the appellant on the basis of her age, contrary to her rights under Article 14 when read with A1P1 of the ECHR. The offending part of regulation 28 must therefore be disapplied.

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. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Secretary of State against that decision on 01 March 2024. A claimant whose universal credit claim is decided before they request backdating can simply raise a request for backdating as part of a revision request and that must then be considered.

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.

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.

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.

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 ([2022] EWCA Civ 120).