MD & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 336 (16 March 2022)

MD & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 336 (16 March 2022)

The Court held that the exclusion of asylum-seeker victims of trafficking from child trafficking support payments did not result in substantive disadvantage, as they received equivalent payments under the asylum support regime. The difference was nominal and did not amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. The Court also found that any additional payment to those on mainstream benefits was a mistake, not a required entitlement. Accordingly, damages were not payable.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 336
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
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; damages award set aside; declaration of discrimination not upheld as to child trafficking support payments for asylum-seeker victims.
Legal Topics
Article 14 ECHR Discrimination, Victims of Trafficking Support, Asylum Seeker Support, Indirect Discrimination, Direct Discrimination, Damages Under Human Rights Act 1998, Interaction of Asylum and Trafficking Regimes
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Social Security Law Equality and Discrimination Law Article 14 ECHR Discrimination Victims of Trafficking Support Asylum Seeker Support Indirect Discrimination +3 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD

Claimant/respondent

EH

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of asylum-seeker victims of trafficking from child trafficking support payments constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the difference in treatment is justified
  3. 3 Whether damages are payable for the discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the exclusion of asylum-seeker victims of trafficking from child trafficking support payments did not result in substantive disadvantage, as they received equivalent payments under the asylum support regime. The difference was nominal and did not amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. The Court also found that any additional payment to those on mainstream benefits was a mistake, not a required entitlement. Accordingly, damages were not payable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; damages award set aside; declaration of discrimination not upheld as to child trafficking support payments for asylum-seeker victims.

Orders

  • Damages award to Claimants set aside
  • No declaration of unlawful discrimination as to child trafficking support payments for asylum-seeker victims of trafficking