Campbell & Ors v South Northamptonshire District Council & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 409 (07 April 2004)

Campbell & Ors v South Northamptonshire District Council & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 409 (07 April 2004)

The appeal fails because the assessment of whether the appellants' tenancies were on a commercial basis is a factual inquiry that properly included all relevant factors, including those arising from religious practice. There was no unlawful discrimination under the ECHR, no material interference with religious rights, and no ultra vires error in the making of the 1998 amendment to the Housing Benefit regulations.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 409
Parties
Appellants: Campbell & Ors; First Respondent: South Northamptonshire District Council; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Social Security Commissioner
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Housing Benefit, Religious Discrimination, European Convention on Human Rights, Ultra Vires, Judicial Review
Social Security Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Housing Benefit Religious Discrimination European Convention on Human Rights Ultra Vires Judicial Review

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Campbell & Ors

Appellants

South Northamptonshire District Council

First Respondent

Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Social Security Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of housing benefit to members of a religious community on grounds of non-commercial tenancy breaches ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether the 1998 amendment to Housing Benefit regulations was ultra vires due to misleading the Social Security Advisory Committee

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the assessment of whether the appellants' tenancies were on a commercial basis is a factual inquiry that properly included all relevant factors, including those arising from religious practice. There was no unlawful discrimination under the ECHR, no material interference with religious rights, and no ultra vires error in the making of the 1998 amendment to the Housing Benefit regulations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed