Legal test cases

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.

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.

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.

On 7 February 2020, the High Court handed down judgment in this case. It was held that the requirement under the Pensions Act 2014, in conjunction with the Bereavement Support Payment Regulations 2017, to be married or in a civil partnership in order to claim higher rate bereavement support payment (BSP) was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The SSWP did not appeal that judgment. The Bereavement Benefits (Remedial) Order 2022 came into effect on 9th February 2023 and extends eligibility for bereavement support payment and widowed parent's allowance to cohabiting partners with children.

In August 2018, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment that denying bereavement benefits to unmarried, cohabiting partners with children is incompatible with human rights law. Separately, CPAG is representing a Muslim woman with two young children who was also denied WPA following the sudden death of her partner with whom she had been through an Islamic marriage ceremony and believed herself to be lawfully married.

On 29 March 2018, CPAG issued judicial review proceedings challenging the decision of the DWP to limit backdated payments to those disabled people who had been underpaid when they transferred from incapacity benefit (‘IB’) to employment and support allowance (‘ESA’) to a 21 October 2014 date.

The issue raised by this case in the Court of Appeal is whether the UK’s Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 must be read pursuant to EU law as providing a right to reside in the UK not only to EEA children in education whose parents have been employed persons, but also to those whose parents have been ¬self-employed persons. Regretfully the Court of Appeal has decided that there is no such requirement and an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused.