SG & Ors (Previously JS & Ors), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions
The benefit cap under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the 2012 Regulations does not unlawfully discriminate against women generally or victims of domestic violence in breach of Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1 or Article 8. The cap pursues legitimate aims of incentivising work, achieving fairness, and fiscal savings, and is not manifestly without reasonable foundation. The best interests of children were considered as a primary consideration. There is no breach of Article 8 ECHR or the UNCRC, and the scheme is not irrational at common law.
- Parties
- Appellants: SG & Ors (Previously JS & Ors); Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Intervener: Child Poverty Action Group; Intervener: Shelter Children’s Legal Service
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 February 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Discrimination, Welfare Benefits, Judicial Review, Article 8 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Irrationality
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SG & Ors (Previously JS & Ors)
Appellants
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent
Child Poverty Action Group
Intervener
Shelter Children’s Legal Service
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the benefit cap under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the 2012 Regulations unlawfully discriminates against women generally or women victims of domestic violence in breach of Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1
- 2 Whether the cap infringes Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
- 3 Whether the cap unlawfully discriminates against families in breach of Article 14 read with Article 8 ECHR
Ratio Decidendi
The benefit cap under the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the 2012 Regulations does not unlawfully discriminate against women generally or victims of domestic violence in breach of Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1 or Article 8. The cap pursues legitimate aims of incentivising work, achieving fairness, and fiscal savings, and is not manifestly without reasonable foundation. The best interests of children were considered as a primary consideration. There is no breach of Article 8 ECHR or the UNCRC, and the scheme is not irrational at common law.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeals dismissed; the benefit cap is lawful and not in breach of the ECHR or common law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment