MD v Secretary of State for the Home Department

MD v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The difference in treatment between victims of trafficking in receipt of asylum support and those in receipt of mainstream benefits regarding child support payments was, in substance, nominal because the claimants received equivalent sums through asylum support. Any more favourable treatment of non-asylum-seeker victims was an unintended anomaly. Therefore, no damages were necessary or appropriate as the claimants suffered no real loss. The indirect discrimination claim also failed as the policy was justified within the state's margin of appreciation.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: MD; Claimant/respondent: EH; Respondent/appellant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court's award of damages and part of the declaration set aside.
Legal Topics
Article 14 ECHR (discrimination), Victims of Trafficking Support, Asylum Support, Indirect Discrimination, Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998
Human Rights Law Social Security Law Immigration Law Article 14 ECHR (discrimination) Victims of Trafficking Support Asylum Support Indirect Discrimination Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD

Claimant/respondent

EH

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of victims of trafficking in receipt of asylum support from additional child support payments constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether such discrimination is direct or indirect and, if so, whether it is justified
  3. 3 Whether damages are payable for any established discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The difference in treatment between victims of trafficking in receipt of asylum support and those in receipt of mainstream benefits regarding child support payments was, in substance, nominal because the claimants received equivalent sums through asylum support. Any more favourable treatment of non-asylum-seeker victims was an unintended anomaly. Therefore, no damages were necessary or appropriate as the claimants suffered no real loss. The indirect discrimination claim also failed as the policy was justified within the state's margin of appreciation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court's award of damages and part of the declaration set aside.

Orders

  • Element (b) of the High Court's declaration set aside.
  • Orders for damages (financial and non-financial loss) set aside.