SC & Ors v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Ors

SC & Ors v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Ors

The two child limit on child tax credit and universal credit does not directly engage ECHR Articles 8 or 12, nor does it fall within the ambit of A1P1 for future claimants. There is no unlawful discrimination against children with multiple siblings as such status cannot be defined independently of the legislative change. Indirect discrimination against women is justified and not manifestly without reasonable foundation, given the legitimate aims of the policy. The UNCRC does not alter this conclusion. However, the sequencing rule in the exception for non-parental caring arrangements is irrational and ultra vires, as it is not rationally connected to the legislative purpose.

Parties
Claimants: SC, CB, CC & CD and 11 children; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Defendant: The Lord Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury; Third Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Intervener: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed except as to the sequencing rule for non-parental caring arrangements, which is declared unlawful.
Legal Topics
Welfare Benefits, Child Tax Credit, Universal Credit, Discrimination, ECHR Article 14, ECHR Article 8, ECHR Article 12, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Legislative Compatibility
Constitutional Law Social Security Law Human Rights Law Welfare Benefits Child Tax Credit Universal Credit Discrimination ECHR Article 14 +4 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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SC, CB, CC & CD and 11 children

Claimants

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Defendant

The Lord Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

Second Defendant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Third Defendant

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the two child limit on child tax credit and universal credit is incompatible with the ECHR, specifically Articles 8, 9, 12, and 14, and A1P1
  2. 2 Whether the legislative exceptions, particularly the sequencing rule for non-parental caring arrangements, are irrational or ultra vires
  3. 3 The role of the UNCRC in interpreting ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The two child limit on child tax credit and universal credit does not directly engage ECHR Articles 8 or 12, nor does it fall within the ambit of A1P1 for future claimants. There is no unlawful discrimination against children with multiple siblings as such status cannot be defined independently of the legislative change. Indirect discrimination against women is justified and not manifestly without reasonable foundation, given the legitimate aims of the policy. The UNCRC does not alter this conclusion. However, the sequencing rule in the exception for non-parental caring arrangements is irrational and ultra vires, as it is not rationally connected to the legislative purpose.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed except as to the sequencing rule for non-parental caring arrangements, which is declared unlawful.

Orders

  • Declaration that the sequencing rule in the exception for non-parental caring arrangements in the 2017 Regulations is unlawful;
  • Application otherwise dismissed;