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.

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.

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.

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.