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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll