The Motherhood Plan & Anor, R. (On the Application of) v Her Majesty's Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 1703 (24 November 2021)

The Motherhood Plan & Anor, R. (On the Application of) v Her Majesty's Treasury [2021] EWCA Civ 1703 (24 November 2021)

The Court of Appeal held that while the SEISS scheme had a disproportionate impact on women who took maternity or pregnancy leave, this did not amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR because the scheme's design was objectively justified. The use of average trading profits was a rational and administratively necessary proxy, given the urgent context and data limitations. The scheme was not manifestly without reasonable foundation, and the government had considered equality impacts and made subsequent adjustments. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1703
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Motherhood Plan; Claimant/appellant: Kerry Chamberlain; Defendant/respondent: Her Majesty's Treasury; Interested Party: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Article 14 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Public Sector Equality Duty, Covid 19 Economic Support, Self Employment Income Support Scheme (seiss), Thlimmenos Discrimination
Public Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Administrative Law Indirect Discrimination Article 14 ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Public Sector Equality Duty +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Motherhood Plan

Claimant/appellant

Kerry Chamberlain

Claimant/appellant

Her Majesty's Treasury

Defendant/respondent

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (appeal) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SEISS unlawfully discriminated against self-employed women who took maternity or pregnancy leave, contrary to Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 of the First Protocol
  2. 2 Whether the scheme constituted indirect or Thlimmenos discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the scheme's design and justifications were manifestly without reasonable foundation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that while the SEISS scheme had a disproportionate impact on women who took maternity or pregnancy leave, this did not amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR because the scheme's design was objectively justified. The use of average trading profits was a rational and administratively necessary proxy, given the urgent context and data limitations. The scheme was not manifestly without reasonable foundation, and the government had considered equality impacts and made subsequent adjustments. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No declaration of unlawful discrimination granted
  • No mandatory order against the respondent