Vincent & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Claimant: Lisa Vincent and others; Claimant: JD (by his father and litigation friend JM); Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 23 July 2020
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome: Claims for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics: Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Welfare Benefits, Loans for Mortgage Interest, Equality Act 2010, Public Sector Equality Duty

Public Law Human Rights Equality Law Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Welfare Benefits Loans for Mortgage Interest Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9

Parties

Lisa Vincent and others

Claimant

JD (by his father and litigation friend JM)

Claimant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Regulation 16 of the Loans for Mortgage Interest Regulations 2017 unlawfully discriminates against disabled persons and their carers under Article 14 ECHR
2 Whether the 'repayment on sale requirement' (RSR) is justified
3 Whether there is a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty

Ratio Decidendi

The repayment on sale requirement (RSR) under Regulation 16 of the Loans for Mortgage Interest Regulations 2017 is not manifestly without reasonable foundation and does not unlawfully discriminate against disabled persons, their carers, or dependent children under Article 14 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1, Article 8, or the Equality Act 2010. The government considered the impact on disabled persons and discharged its Public Sector Equality Duty. The claims for judicial review are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims for judicial review dismissed

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.