Social Security in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • KA and Others (Adequacy of maintenance)
    • Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
    • 04 September 2006

    To do so is to encourage the view that immigrant families need less, or can be expected to live on less, and in certain areas of the country would be prone to create whole communities living at a lower standard than even the poorest of British citizens.

  • Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 April 2001

  • R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    • House of Lords
    • 22 October 2008

    Equally, the fact that the line may have been drawn imperfectly does not mean that the policy cannot be justified. Of course, there will come a point where the justification for a policy is so weak, or the line has been drawn in such an arbitrary position, that, even with the broad margin of appreciation accorded to the state, the court will conclude that the policy is unjustifiable.

  • Humphreys v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
    • Supreme Court
    • 16 May 2012

    The phrase "manifestly without reasonable foundation" dates back to James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123, para 46, which concerned the compatibility of leasehold enfranchisement with article 1 of the First Protocol. "Similarly, the decision to link eligibility for REA to the pension system was reasonably and objectively justified, given that this benefit is intended to compensate for reduced earning capacity during a person's working life" (para 66).

  • An application by Siobhan McLaughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 August 2018

    Given the direct link with children, there cannot be much doubt that the provision of widowed parent's allowance is an action concerning children. To like effect is article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 1966. Denying children the benefit of social insurance simply because their parents were not married to one another is inconsistent with that obligation.

  • R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    • House of Lords
    • 26 May 2005

    If this prerequisite is satisfied, the essential question for the court is whether the alleged discrimination, that is, the difference in treatment of which complaint is made, can withstand scrutiny. There may be such an obvious, relevant difference between the claimant and those with whom he seeks to compare himself that their situations cannot be regarded as analogous.

  • Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow
    • House of Lords
    • 25 July 1955

    But, without any such misconception appearing ex facie, it may be that the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
Forms
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT