Rutherford & Ors v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions (Rev 1)

Rutherford & Ors v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions (Rev 1)

The scheme, including Regulation B13 and Discretionary Housing Payments, does not produce an unreasonable discriminatory effect against disabled children requiring overnight care. The claimants have suffered no financial detriment, and there is adequate assurance that DHPs will continue to plug the gap. The scheme is justified by legitimate aims, proportionality, and a wide margin of appreciation, and is not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Parties
Claimant: Susan Rutherford; Claimant: Paul Rutherford; Claimant: Warren Todd (by his litigation friend Susan Rutherford); Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Interested Party: Pembrokeshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Housing Benefit, Discretionary Housing Payments, Article 14 ECHR, Regulation B13, Proportionality, Legitimate Aim, Margin of Appreciation
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Social Security Law Discrimination Housing Benefit Discretionary Housing Payments Article 14 ECHR +4 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Rutherford

Claimant

Paul Rutherford

Claimant

Warren Todd (by his litigation friend Susan Rutherford)

Claimant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant

Pembrokeshire County Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 unlawfully discriminates against disabled children requiring overnight care by not providing an extra bedroom for a non-resident carer
  2. 2 Whether the use of Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) provides adequate justification for the prima facie discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the scheme as a whole is manifestly without reasonable foundation

Ratio Decidendi

The scheme, including Regulation B13 and Discretionary Housing Payments, does not produce an unreasonable discriminatory effect against disabled children requiring overnight care. The claimants have suffered no financial detriment, and there is adequate assurance that DHPs will continue to plug the gap. The scheme is justified by legitimate aims, proportionality, and a wide margin of appreciation, and is not manifestly without reasonable foundation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted for judicial review
  • Application for mandatory order and declaration refused