RF v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions

RF v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions

The 2017 regulations introduced a discriminatory criterion against those with mental health impairments, lacked objective justification, were not rationally connected to their stated objective, and were manifestly without reasonable foundation. The measure was also ultra vires the parent statute and enacted unlawfully without consultation.

Parties
Claimant: RF; Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; 1st Intervener: Mind; 2nd Intervener: The Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; judicial review granted; impugned regulation quashed.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Consultation Requirements, Article 14 ECHR, Welfare Reform, Personal Independence Payment (pip)
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Social Security Law Disability Discrimination Judicial Review Ultra Vires Consultation Requirements +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RF

Claimant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant

Mind

1st Intervener

The Equality and Human Rights Commission

2nd Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether para 2(4) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 is discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the 2017 regulations are ultra vires the Welfare Reform Act 2012
  3. 3 Whether the failure to consult prior to making the 2017 regulations was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The 2017 regulations introduced a discriminatory criterion against those with mental health impairments, lacked objective justification, were not rationally connected to their stated objective, and were manifestly without reasonable foundation. The measure was also ultra vires the parent statute and enacted unlawfully without consultation.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judicial review granted; impugned regulation quashed.

Orders

  • Permission to seek judicial review granted
  • Paragraph 2(4) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 quashed