Couronne & Ors v Bontemps & Ors

Couronne & Ors v Bontemps & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the habitual residence test did not unlawfully discriminate against the appellants under the Race Relations Act 1976, the ECHR, or the Race Directive. The rule was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, namely to ensure that social security benefits are provided only to those whom the UK government considers should be supported by the taxpayer. The Secretary of State's refusal to exempt the appellants was not irrational, and section 41(2) of the Race Relations Act immunised the acts in question from challenge. The Race Directive and ECHR did not provide a basis for overturning the decision.

Parties
Appellants: Marie Jenny Couronne and Others; Appellants: Francis Eddy Bontemps and Others; Respondent: Crawley Borough Council; Respondent: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Respondent: The First Secretary of State; Interested Party: West Sussex County Council; Interested Party: Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Indirect Discrimination, Habitual Residence Test, Race Relations Act, European Convention on Human Rights, Council Directive 2000/43/ec, Statutory Interpretation
Public Law Discrimination Law Social Security Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Indirect Discrimination Habitual Residence Test Race Relations Act +3 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie Jenny Couronne and Others

Appellants

Francis Eddy Bontemps and Others

Appellants

Crawley Borough Council

Respondent

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

The First Secretary of State

Respondent

West Sussex County Council

Interested Party

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the habitual residence test for social security and homelessness assistance unlawfully discriminates against Chagossian British citizens under the Race Relations Act 1976, the European Convention on Human Rights, or the Race Directive.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to exempt the appellants from the habitual residence test was irrational in light of the British government's unlawful conduct towards the Chagossians.
  3. 3 Whether the relevant statutory provisions are immune from challenge under the Race Relations Act 1976, section 41(2).

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the habitual residence test did not unlawfully discriminate against the appellants under the Race Relations Act 1976, the ECHR, or the Race Directive. The rule was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, namely to ensure that social security benefits are provided only to those whom the UK government considers should be supported by the taxpayer. The Secretary of State's refusal to exempt the appellants was not irrational, and section 41(2) of the Race Relations Act immunised the acts in question from challenge. The Race Directive and ECHR did not provide a basis for overturning the decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; no relief granted to the appellants.