Legal test cases

This is a challenge to the policy of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in relation to MJ, a claimant in receipt of the carer element and transitional SDP element, to erode the whole of her transitional SDP element when she was found to have limited capability for work and work related activity. The UT allowed the SSWP’s appeal and re-made the FTT decision in MJ’s favour, finding that she had been unlawfully discriminated against.

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

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.

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. DWP amended guidance on 3 February 2025 indicating they now accept that third country national family members of EU nationals can also benefit from the judgment.

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.

On 12 May 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in favour of the appellants in this case. The appellants were originally in receipt of legacy benefits but had to claim universal credit (UC) when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) decided that they were no longer entitled to legacy benefits and terminated their awards.  Even though those decisions were ultimately overturned on revision, the appellants were stuck on UC and received less than they would have if they had remained on legacy benefits.  The Court found that there had been a difference in treatment of the appellants compared with legacy benefit claimants who had not had any wrongful decision terminating their legacy benefit awards and therefore would be moved to UC through managed migration and benefit from transitional protection. This difference in treatment was found by the Court to be manifestly without reasonable foundation and the Article 14 non-discrimination rights of the appellants (in conjunction with Article 1 to the First Protocol) had been breached. The SSWP applied directly to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal but that application was refused on 26 February 2021.