Tthe Motherhood Plan & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v & Anor

Tthe Motherhood Plan & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v & Anor

The SEISS did not constitute indirect or Thlimmenos discrimination against women who took maternity leave, as the Scheme applied equally to all and any disadvantage resulted from lower past earnings, not the Scheme itself. Even if discrimination existed, it was justified under the MWRF test due to the need for speed, simplicity, fraud prevention, and value for money. The Public Sector Equality Duty was not breached as the relevant equality impacts were properly considered.

Parties
Claimant: The Motherhood Plan; Claimant: Ms Kerry Chamberlain; Defendant: Her Majesty’s Treasury; Interested Party: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Public Sector Equality Duty, Article 14 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Maternity Rights, State Benefits, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Equality and Discrimination Law Administrative Law Indirect Discrimination Public Sector Equality Duty Article 14 ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Maternity Rights +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 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Motherhood Plan

Claimant

Ms Kerry Chamberlain

Claimant

Her Majesty’s Treasury

Defendant

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Self Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) unlawfully discriminates against self-employed women who took maternity leave, contrary to Article 14 read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The SEISS did not constitute indirect or Thlimmenos discrimination against women who took maternity leave, as the Scheme applied equally to all and any disadvantage resulted from lower past earnings, not the Scheme itself. Even if discrimination existed, it was justified under the MWRF test due to the need for speed, simplicity, fraud prevention, and value for money. The Public Sector Equality Duty was not breached as the relevant equality impacts were properly considered.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed