RJM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 614 (28 June 2007)

RJM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 614 (28 June 2007)

A person without accommodation does not have an 'other status' within the meaning of Article 14 ECHR, so the refusal to pay disability premium to such a person is not discriminatory under the Convention. Even if such status existed, the differential treatment is justified as a rational policy choice within the State's margin of appreciation.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 614
Parties
Claimant/appellant: R (RJM); Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Premium, Income Support, Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Possessions Under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Homelessness and Welfare Benefits

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R (RJM)

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court Administrative Court

  1. 1 Whether a person without accommodation has 'other status' under Article 14 ECHR for the purposes of discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to pay disability premium to homeless claimants is justified under the Convention
  3. 3 Whether entitlement to income support/disability premium is a 'possession' under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

A person without accommodation does not have an 'other status' within the meaning of Article 14 ECHR, so the refusal to pay disability premium to such a person is not discriminatory under the Convention. Even if such status existed, the differential treatment is justified as a rational policy choice within the State's margin of appreciation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.