R A v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Stanley Burnton,Lord Justice Underhill |
| Judgment Date | 21 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Civ 772 |
| Date | 21 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: C1/2015/0502 & C1/2014/2539 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2015] EWCA Civ 772
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WORSTER (sitting as a High Court Judge) and
MR JUSTICE STUART-SMITH
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Underhill
and
Sir Stanley Burnton
Case Nos: C1/2015/0502 & C1/2014/2539
Karon Monaghan QC, Caoilfhionn Gallagher and Katherine O'Byrne (instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine) for A
Richard Drabble QC and Tom Royston (instructed by Child Poverty Action Group) for SR and others
Tim Eicke QC, Gemma White and Edward Brown (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State in both applications
Hearing date: 2 July 2015
The applications before us concern further claims to challenge the lawfulness of what is commonly, if inaccurately, called the Bedroom Tax, which was introduced by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 ("the Regulations"). In both cases, the Claimants seek permission to appeal against the judgments below. In A, the Claimant applies to lift the stay on her claim imposed by Elias LJ, pending the judgment of the Supreme Court in MA, to which I refer below.
As is well known, the object of the Regulations is to reduce the amount of housing benefit paid to tenants if their rented accommodation is larger than their needs. The result, for most tenants in that situation, is that their housing benefit does not fully cover their rent. As a result, they must either move to smaller accommodation or provide the balance themselves.
The Regulations include provisions that exclude the reduction in certain defined cases in which the Government acknowledge that the needs of the tenant are greater than for other families of that size. However, the Government considered that there would be persons outside those excluded cases for whom the level of housing benefit should not be reduced. Instead of seeking to define comprehensively the cases in which full benefit would continue to be paid the Government provided for a discretionary benefit, called Discretionary Housing Payment "DHP", the payment of which is under the control of local authorities.
The Claimants in the present applications are recipients of DHP. They claim that the Regulations unlawfully discriminate against them, because instead of a legal and enforceable entitlement to full housing benefit they need DHP, to which they have no enforceable claim (other than by way of judicial review of their local authority), and which their local authority could decide to cease to pay.
In A, the Claimant has been the subject of serious violence on the part of a man with whom she had a brief relationship. The threat to her was sufficient for her to be made the subject of a Sanctuary Scheme, described in paragraphs 9 and following of the judgment of His Honour Judge Worster in her case. He rejected her claim. His careful judgment is at [2015] EWHC 159 (Admin).
In SR, the First and Second Claimants are the maternal grandparents of the Third Claimant, who lives with them and who suffers from Potoki-Shaffer Syndrome. He was aged 14 when Stuart-Smith J heard and rejected their claim in May 2004. It is because of his needs that they require accommodation greater than would be required if he were well. They contend that the Regulations unlawfully discriminate against them and others in a similar situation, thereby infringing their rights under Article 14.
In A, the Claimant alleges that the Regulations discriminate against her and others who are the subject of Sanctuary Schemes (because receipt of DHP is discretionary rather than mandatory);...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Susan Rutherford, Paul Rutherford and Warren Todd (A Child, by his Litigation Friend Susan Rutherford) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
...could be considered by the Supreme Court, if it thought fit, at the hearing of the appeal in MA: see their judgment dated 21 July 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 772. 8 We are bound by the decision and reasoning in MA as regards the scheme and its analysis of another decision of this court in Burnip ......
-
Natasha Palmer v Mr Seferif Mantas
...a multiplier/multiplicand basis as it is contended that would lead to an unrealistic result relying upon Billett v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 772 and Murphy v Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 03 112 In Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd [2013] ICR 591, Langstaff J state......