header-logo header-logo

Social security

02 April 2015
Issue: 7647 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of SG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) [2015] UKSC 16, [2015] All ER (D) 197 (Mar)

The claimants challenged the government’s introduction of a cap on welfare benefits on the basis that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2994) which had implemented the cap, discriminated unjustifiable between men and women, contrary to Art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimants’ judicial review challenge. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimants’ appeal, held that, giving due weight to the assessment of the government and Parliament, the court was not persuaded that the Regulations were incompatible with Art 14 of the Convention. The Regulations pursued legitimate aims and, as the question of proportionality involved controversial issues of social and economic policy, the determination of which was pre-eminently the function of democratically elected institutions, it was necessary for the court to give due weight to the considered

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll