Legal test cases

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.

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 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 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.

The Upper Tribunal held that when a worker has worked for over 12 months then they do not need to show a genuine chance of being engaged after 6 months of unemployment in order to retain worker status and the associated right to reside.

This case concerned a judicial review challenging the revised, lower benefit cap, introduced in 2016. The appeal was brought on behalf of two single mothers who are affected by the cap due to their caring responsibilities. One of the claimants has children with significant health needs while the other has previously fled domestic violence. The appeal in this case was heard on 17-19 July 2018 by a 7 judge panel of the Supreme Court alongside that of R (DA and Others) v SSWP. Judgment was given on 15 May 2019 finding that cap did not unlawfully discriminate against lone parents with children under 5 and their 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.

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.