header-logo header-logo

30 June 2017
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Social security

R (on the application of DA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Shelter intervening) [2017] EWHC 1446 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 129 (Jun)

The Administrative Court allowed the claimants’ application for judicial review of the revised benefit cap in the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213, which required a parent, in order to avoid the imposition of the cap, to work at least 16 hours per week.

The manifestly without reasonable foundation test did not save the discrimination against lone parents of children under the age of two by showing justification.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The government has pledged to ‘move fast’ to protect children from harm caused by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, and could impose limits on social media as early as the summer
All eyes will be on the Court of Appeal (or its YouTube livestream) next week as it sits to consider the controversial Mazur judgment
An NHS Foundation Trust breached a consultant’s contract by delegating an investigation into his knowledge of nurse Lucy Letby’s case
Draft guidance for schools on how to support gender-questioning pupils provides ‘more clarity’, but headteachers may still need legal advice, an education lawyer has said
Litigation funder Innsworth Capital, which funded behemoth opt-out action Merricks v Mastercard, can bring a judicial review, the High Court ruled last week
back-to-top-scroll