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.

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).

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.

CPAG has brought a challenge in the Upper Tribunal to HMRC's refusal to backdate payments of the disability element of child tax credit (CTC), following underpayments of benefit prior to April 2016. A decision is currently awaited. 

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.

This case concerns the removal of the spare room subsidy, widely referred to as the ‘bedroom tax’, in cases where a bedroom is too small for two children to share. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal on 21/05/19 and judgment was handed down on 24/06/19. The Court of appeal held that "bedroom" as it is used in Regulation B13(5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, should be interpreted as meaning a room capable of being used as a bedroom by any of the categories listed in Regulation 13(5), and not by the particular claimant. The Court found that there is no subjective element in the assessment and that a bedroom suitable for a baby would also be suitable for a 15 year old, as the Regulations do not make a distinction. Both rooms being considered in this case could therefore be classed as bedrooms, meaning that the family did have a “spare” room.

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.