AR & SXC, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

AR & SXC, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The difference in treatment between severely disabled persons who moved local authority areas and those who did not, resulting in a significant loss of benefits without transitional protection, constituted unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1. The status requirement was satisfied, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondents: The Queen (on the Application of TP, AR & SXC); Appellant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Intervener: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Transitional Protection in Welfare Reform, Universal Credit Migration, Objective Justification for Differential Treatment, Status Under Article 14 ECHR
Constitutional Law Social Security Law Human Rights Law Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Transitional Protection in Welfare Reform Universal Credit Migration Objective Justification for Differential Treatment Status Under Article 14 ECHR

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the Application of TP, AR & SXC)

Respondents

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Appellant

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the implementation of Universal Credit regulations unlawfully discriminated against severely disabled persons who moved local authority areas, contrary to Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1)
  2. 2 Whether the difference in treatment was on the ground of an 'other status' under Article 14
  3. 3 Whether the difference in treatment was objectively justified

Ratio Decidendi

The difference in treatment between severely disabled persons who moved local authority areas and those who did not, resulting in a significant loss of benefits without transitional protection, constituted unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1. The status requirement was satisfied, and the Secretary of State failed to provide objective justification for the differential treatment. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the difference in treatment was unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with A1P1
  • No order as to damages determined in this judgment