Clulow, R (on the application of) v Independent Review Service & Anor

Clulow, R (on the application of) v Independent Review Service & Anor

There was no discrimination on grounds of property or other status under Article 14 ECHR because the claimant's inability to access a CCG was due to not meeting a threshold condition (receipt of a qualifying means-tested benefit), not interference with a property right or a relevant personal characteristic. Even if there was discrimination, it was justified as the system was rational, administratively efficient, and not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Parties
Claimant: Cheralyn Clulow; First Defendant: Independent Review Service; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Article 14 ECHR, Social Fund Directions, Community Care Grant, Means Tested Benefits
Constitutional Law Social Security Law Human Rights Law Discrimination Article 14 ECHR Social Fund Directions Community Care Grant Means Tested 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheralyn Clulow

Claimant

Independent Review Service

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of access to a discretionary community care grant (CCG) to the claimant amounted to unjustified discrimination under Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the distinction between contribution-based and income-related employment and support allowance constitutes discrimination on grounds of property or other status

Ratio Decidendi

There was no discrimination on grounds of property or other status under Article 14 ECHR because the claimant's inability to access a CCG was due to not meeting a threshold condition (receipt of a qualifying means-tested benefit), not interference with a property right or a relevant personal characteristic. Even if there was discrimination, it was justified as the system was rational, administratively efficient, and not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed