Campbell & Ors v South Northamptonshire District Council & Anor

Campbell & Ors v South Northamptonshire District Council & Anor

The appeal is dismissed because the Tribunal's assessment of whether the tenancy agreements were on a commercial basis was a factual inquiry, not discretionary, and all relevant facts, including those arising from religious beliefs, were properly considered. There was no discrimination under the ECHR as there was no substantive right violation or sufficient nexus between the refusal of housing benefit and the appellants' religious practices. The Social Security Advisory Committee was not misled regarding the effect of the amendment to regulation 7, so the regulation is not ultra vires.

Parties
Appellant: Campbell & Ors; First Respondent: South Northamptonshire District Council; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Social Security Commissioner to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Housing Benefit, Religious Discrimination, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, European Convention on Human Rights
Social Security Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Housing Benefit Religious Discrimination Judicial Review Ultra Vires European Convention on Human Rights

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Campbell & Ors

Appellant

South Northamptonshire District Council

First Respondent

Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Social Security Commissioner to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of housing benefit to communal religious group members under amended regulation 7 is discriminatory under ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Social Security Advisory Committee was misled, rendering the regulation ultra vires

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Tribunal's assessment of whether the tenancy agreements were on a commercial basis was a factual inquiry, not discretionary, and all relevant facts, including those arising from religious beliefs, were properly considered. There was no discrimination under the ECHR as there was no substantive right violation or sufficient nexus between the refusal of housing benefit and the appellants' religious practices. The Social Security Advisory Committee was not misled regarding the effect of the amendment to regulation 7, so the regulation is not ultra vires.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed