Clulow, R (on the application of) v Independent Review Service & Anor [2013] EWHC 3241 (Admin) (24 October 2013)

Clulow, R (on the application of) v Independent Review Service & Anor [2013] EWHC 3241 (Admin) (24 October 2013)

The refusal to consider the claimant for a CCG because she was not in receipt of a qualifying means-tested benefit (IRESA) did not amount to discrimination on grounds of 'property' or 'other status' under Article 14 ECHR. The distinction is rational, administratively justified, and not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3241 (Admin)
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 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Social Fund Directions, Community Care Grants, Means Tested Benefits
Administrative Law Social Security Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Social Fund Directions Community Care Grants 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 12 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 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion from discretionary community care grant (CCG) for claimant on contribution-based ESA amounts to unjustified discrimination under Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the distinction between contribution-based and income-related ESA for CCG eligibility is discriminatory on grounds of 'property' or 'other status'

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to consider the claimant for a CCG because she was not in receipt of a qualifying means-tested benefit (IRESA) did not amount to discrimination on grounds of 'property' or 'other status' under Article 14 ECHR. The distinction is rational, administratively justified, and not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed