Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2016] All ER (D) 56 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2016] UKSC 58
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Neuberger P, Lady Hale DP, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson SCJJ

Representation Richard Drabble QC (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Mrs C.
  Martin Westgate QC and Aileen McColgan (Instructed by Central England Law Centre) for RR, MD, JD and JDY.
  James Eadie QC, Tim Eicke QC, Gemma White QC, Edward Brown and Simon Pritchard (Instructed by The Government Legal Department) for the Secretary of State.
  Karon Monaghan QC, Caoilfhionn Gallagher and Katie O'Byrne (Instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine Solicitors) for A.
  Richard Drabble QC and Tom Royston (Instructed by Child Poverty Action Group) for R family.
  Helen Mountfield QC and Raj Desai (Instructed by Equality & Human Rights Commission) for the Intervener (the Equality & Human Rights Commission).
Judgment Dates: 9 November 2016

Catchwords

Social security - Benefit - Benefit cap - 'Bedroom Tax' - Government introducing changes to calculation of housing benefit for rents in public sector based on occupancy of property - Two sets of judicial review applications being appealed - Court of Appeal making decision on applicable test and on application of test to circumstances of case - Appeal to Supreme Court - Whether correct test used and applied correctly - Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012, - .

The Case

Social security Benefit. The Supreme Court held that the normal test in assessing the legality of the cap that had been imposed by regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, was the test of 'manifestly without reasonable foundation' as it could be said that consideration of the 2006 regulations involved issues of economic and social policy.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.