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

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 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.

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).

CPAG brought judicial review proceedings on behalf of two EU nationals, a severely disabled man and his carer, who were refused universal credit on the basis that their limited leave to remain in the UK under Appendix EU to the immigration rules (‘pre-settled status’) was not a qualifying right of residence for the purposes of means-tested benefits. On 27 April 2020, the High Court dismissed the claim. The Claimants sought permission to appeal and, following the grant of permission by the Court of Appeal, the Court found in favour of the Appellants/Claimants in a judgment handed down on 18 December 2020. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile on 15 July 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a judgment which the parties in the case brought by CPAG accept is binding on the Supreme Court, ruled that it was not unlawfully discriminatory to have such a rule (i.e. that the basis on which the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal was wrong). The Supreme Court gave a final decision allowing the Secretary of State's appeal on 1 December 2021.

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.

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.