Salvato, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions [2021] EWCA Civ 1482 (13 October 2021)

Salvato, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions [2021] EWCA Civ 1482 (13 October 2021)

The Court of Appeal held that the Proof of Payment Rule for the childcare costs element of Universal Credit is not unlawfully indirectly discriminatory against women under Article 14 ECHR, as the evidence did not establish a disproportionate prejudicial effect on women compared to men eligible for the benefit, and the rule is objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of preventing fraud and error and ensuring administrative simplicity. The rule is not irrational in public law terms.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1482
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Queen (on the application of Salvato); Defendant/appellant: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (administrative Law, Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision overturned
Legal Topics
Universal Credit, Indirect Discrimination, Article 14 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Welfare Benefits, Proportionality, Judicial Review
Public Law Social Security Law Human Rights Law Universal Credit Indirect Discrimination Article 14 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Welfare Benefits +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of Salvato)

Claimant/respondent

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 'Proof of Payment Rule' for the childcare costs element of Universal Credit is unlawfully indirectly discriminatory on grounds of sex under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 8 and/or A1P1
  2. 2 Whether the rule is irrational in public law terms
  3. 3 Whether the rule is objectively justified and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Proof of Payment Rule for the childcare costs element of Universal Credit is not unlawfully indirectly discriminatory against women under Article 14 ECHR, as the evidence did not establish a disproportionate prejudicial effect on women compared to men eligible for the benefit, and the rule is objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of preventing fraud and error and ensuring administrative simplicity. The rule is not irrational in public law terms.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision overturned

Orders

  • Declaration of incompatibility set aside
  • No finding of unlawful discrimination or irrationality against the Secretary of State