The Motherhood Plan (R on the application of) v HM Treasury

The Motherhood Plan (R on the application of) v HM Treasury

The use of average trading profits as the basis for SEISS payments constituted prima facie indirect discrimination against recent mothers, but in the context of the urgent and unprecedented circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, the government’s justifications—speed, simplicity, fraud prevention, and administrative feasibility—were sufficient. The discriminatory impact was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, and the scheme was justified. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

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 From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Article 14 ECHR, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR, Public Sector Equality Duty, Proportionality, Welfare Benefits, Covid 19 Emergency Legislation
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Indirect Discrimination Article 14 ECHR Article 1 First Protocol ECHR Public Sector Equality Duty Proportionality +2 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) unlawfully discriminated against self-employed women who took maternity or pregnancy-related leave, contrary to Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 of the First Protocol.
  2. 2 Whether the scheme's calculation method constituted indirect or Thlimmenos discrimination.
  3. 3 Whether any discrimination was objectively justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The use of average trading profits as the basis for SEISS payments constituted prima facie indirect discrimination against recent mothers, but in the context of the urgent and unprecedented circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, the government’s justifications—speed, simplicity, fraud prevention, and administrative feasibility—were sufficient. The discriminatory impact was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, and the scheme was justified. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.