C, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

C, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor

The Court held that the Retention Policy and GRC Noting Policy presently meet the test of necessity and have a proper legal foundation, but lack clarity and accessibility. The policies are proportionate given the legitimate aims of pension calculation and fraud prevention, but their justification will reduce over...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen (on the application of C); Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Intervener: The Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Gender Recognition, Retention of Sensitive Data, Discrimination, Public Sector Equality Duty, Privacy, Data Retention Policies
Human Rights Equality Law Administrative Law Data Protection Gender Recognition Retention of Sensitive Data Discrimination Public Sector Equality Duty +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of C)

Claimant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant

The Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Retention Policy, GRC Noting Policy, and SCR Policy violate Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the policies constitute direct or indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty under s.149 EA 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Retention Policy and GRC Noting Policy presently meet the test of necessity and have a proper legal foundation, but lack clarity and accessibility. The policies are proportionate given the legitimate aims of pension calculation and fraud prevention, but their justification will reduce over time. The SCR Policy is over-elaborate and tends to draw attention to transgender customers, but no order is made at this stage. The Claimant failed to show direct discrimination or breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty. Indirect discrimination is assumed for argument, but the Defendant's justification is sufficient. The policies are not irrational.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed