Carson & Anor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Carson & Anor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Court held that neither the age-based nor residence-based distinctions in the payment of state benefits violated Article 14 read with Article 1P of the ECHR. For Reynolds, non-contributory benefits (income support) are not 'possessions' for Article 1P purposes, and the age distinction in jobseeker’s allowance is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Carson; Claimant: Reynolds; Respondent: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Judicial Review (administrative Court) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, State Benefits, European Convention on Human Rights, Judicial Review
Human Rights Law Social Security Law Administrative Law Discrimination State Benefits European Convention on Human Rights Judicial Review

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 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carson

Claimant

Reynolds

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Judicial Review (administrative Court) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the differential treatment in state benefits (jobseeker’s allowance, income support, retirement pension uprating) violates Article 14 (non-discrimination) read with Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether non-contributory benefits constitute 'possessions' under Article 1P for the purposes of Article 14.
  3. 3 Whether the difference in treatment is objectively and reasonably justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that neither the age-based nor residence-based distinctions in the payment of state benefits violated Article 14 read with Article 1P of the ECHR. For Reynolds, non-contributory benefits (income support) are not 'possessions' for Article 1P purposes, and the age distinction in jobseeker’s allowance is objectively justified. For Carson, pensioners abroad are not in an analogous situation to those in the UK or in countries with bilateral agreements, and the refusal to uprate pensions is objectively justified by policy and cost considerations. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Carson to pay respondent’s costs.