Pantellerisco & Ors v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions (Rev2) [2021] EWCA Civ 1454 (08 October 2021)

Pantellerisco & Ors v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions (Rev2) [2021] EWCA Civ 1454 (08 October 2021)

The Court of Appeal held that the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, as applied to claimants paid on a four-weekly cycle, are not irrational or unlawful. The Secretary of State's decision to structure Universal Credit assessment periods and earnings calculations by reference to actual receipts in a calendar month, even though it causes the 'pay-cycle effect', is within the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker. The system's design, including its automation and reliance on monthly periods, reflects deliberate policy choices approved by Parliament. The disadvantages of the pay-cycle effect do not reach the threshold of manifest absurdity or irrationality required for...

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1454
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Sharon Pantellerisco and others; Defendant/appellant: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (administrative Law, Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed. High Court declaration of unlawfulness set aside.
Legal Topics
Universal Credit, Benefit Cap, Judicial Review, Irrationality (wednesbury), Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Social Security Law Public Law Universal Credit Benefit Cap Judicial Review Irrationality (wednesbury) Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Pantellerisco and others

Claimants/respondents

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (administrative Law, Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, as applied to claimants paid on a four-weekly cycle, are irrational and unlawful due to the 'pay-cycle effect' causing arbitrary reduction in benefits.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to adjust the Regulations to account for the pay-cycle effect is within the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, as applied to claimants paid on a four-weekly cycle, are not irrational or unlawful. The Secretary of State's decision to structure Universal Credit assessment periods and earnings calculations by reference to actual receipts in a calendar month, even though it causes the 'pay-cycle effect', is within the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker. The system's design, including its automation and reliance on monthly periods, reflects deliberate policy choices approved by Parliament. The disadvantages of the pay-cycle effect do not reach the threshold of manifest absurdity or irrationality required for...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. High Court declaration of unlawfulness set aside.

Orders

  • The declaration that the calculation required by regulation 82(1)(a) read with regulation 54 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 is irrational and unlawful in respect of four-weekly paid employees is set aside.
  • No further relief granted.