Tucker v Secretary Of State For Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 1646 (8 November 2001)

Tucker v Secretary Of State For Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 1646 (8 November 2001)

The amendment to regulation 7(1)(d) was a rational and proportionate anti-abuse measure within the Secretary of State's discretion, did not breach ECHR rights or conflict with the Child Support Acts, and was not Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise unlawful.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1646
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sharon Tucker; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Social Security
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (administrative Court and Divisional Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Housing Benefit, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Proportionality, Article 8 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Subsidiary Legislation, Child Support Acts
Administrative Law Social Security Law Human Rights Law Housing Benefit Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness Proportionality Article 8 ECHR +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Tucker

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Social Security

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (administrative Court and Divisional Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment to regulation 7(1)(d) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 was irrational or disproportionate
  2. 2 Whether the regulation breached Article 8 and Article 14 of the ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the regulation conflicted with the Child Support Acts 1991 and 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to regulation 7(1)(d) was a rational and proportionate anti-abuse measure within the Secretary of State's discretion, did not breach ECHR rights or conflict with the Child Support Acts, and was not Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.