R (on the application of Carmichael and Rourke) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

R (on the application of Carmichael and Rourke) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Supreme Court held that, in general, the structure of Regulation B13 and the use of Discretionary Housing Payments to mitigate its effects on persons with disabilities or women in sanctuary schemes was not manifestly without reasonable foundation and did not amount to unlawful discrimination. However, in the specific cases of Mrs Carmichael (an adult unable to share a bedroom due to disability) and the Rutherford family (a child requiring overnight care), the regulation drew unjustifiable distinctions between adults and children or between carers for adults and children, and thus breached Article 14 ECHR. The DHP scheme was not sufficient justification for these distinctions. The...

Parties
Appellant: Jacqueline Carmichael; Appellant: Richard Rourke; Appellant: Mervyn Drage; Appellant: JD; Appellant: James Daly; Respondent/cross Appellant: A; Respondents: Susan Rutherford and Paul Rutherford; Respondent/appellant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; appeal dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Housing Benefit, Public Sector Equality Duty, European Convention on Human Rights, Judicial Review, Welfare Reform
Constitutional Law Social Security Law Equality and Discrimination Law Human Rights Law Disability Discrimination Sex Discrimination Housing Benefit Public Sector Equality Duty +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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Carmichael

Appellant

Richard Rourke

Appellant

Mervyn Drage

Appellant

JD

Appellant

James Daly

Appellant

A

Respondent/cross Appellant

Susan Rutherford and Paul Rutherford

Respondents

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 unlawfully discriminates against persons with disabilities or women in sanctuary scheme accommodation under Article 14 ECHR, taken with Article 8 and/or A1P1.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State breached the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 in formulating and implementing Regulation B13.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, in general, the structure of Regulation B13 and the use of Discretionary Housing Payments to mitigate its effects on persons with disabilities or women in sanctuary schemes was not manifestly without reasonable foundation and did not amount to unlawful discrimination. However, in the specific cases of Mrs Carmichael (an adult unable to share a bedroom due to disability) and the Rutherford family (a child requiring overnight care), the regulation drew unjustifiable distinctions between adults and children or between carers for adults and children, and thus breached Article 14 ECHR. The DHP scheme was not sufficient justification for these distinctions. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; appeal dismissed in part

Orders

  • Secretary of State's appeal in the Rutherford case dismissed; Mrs Carmichael's appeal allowed; claims of other MA claimants dismissed; Secretary of State's appeal in A's case allowed; A's cross-appeal under the Equality Act dismissed.