T v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

T v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

The failure to increase legacy benefits in line with Universal Credit did not amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. 'Being in receipt of a legacy benefit' was not a relevant 'other status' for direct discrimination. The indirect discrimination claim on grounds of disability failed because the difference in treatment was justified by the urgent need to support new Universal Credit claimants during the pandemic, operational constraints, and the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency.

Parties
Claimant: T; Claimant: Philip Wayland; Claimant: Martin Keatings; Claimant: Ian Barrow; Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Article 14 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Universal Credit, Legacy Benefits, Disability Discrimination, Judicial Review, COVID 19 Emergency Measures
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Social Security Law Discrimination Article 14 ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Universal Credit +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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Claimant

Philip Wayland

Claimant

Martin Keatings

Claimant

Ian Barrow

Claimant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to increase legacy benefits in line with Universal Credit during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR and Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether 'being in receipt of a legacy benefit' constitutes 'other status' for Article 14 purposes.
  3. 3 Whether the difference in treatment was justified, particularly in relation to disabled persons (indirect discrimination).

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to increase legacy benefits in line with Universal Credit did not amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. 'Being in receipt of a legacy benefit' was not a relevant 'other status' for direct discrimination. The indirect discrimination claim on grounds of disability failed because the difference in treatment was justified by the urgent need to support new Universal Credit claimants during the pandemic, operational constraints, and the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 emergency.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted to Third and Fourth Claimants
  • All claims for judicial review dismissed