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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll