* R (on the application of Carmichael and another) (formerly known as MA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (on the application of Daly and others) (formerly known as MA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another appeal

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.

R (on the application of Ghulam and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration Asylum seeker. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' applications for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions setting the level of weekly support payments to asylum seekers, pursuant to to of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Secretary of State's methodology had been different to that previously criticised, the decisions had not been discriminatory and there had been no breach of the public sector equality duty.

*R (on the application of Reilly and another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Jeffrey and another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Social security Income support. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, determined two appeals regarding the effect of the . It held that, by that Act, Parliament had successfully retrospectively validated sanctions imposed on jobseeker's allowance claimants who had failed to participate in certain back to work schemes. In the cases of those claimants who had already appealed their sanctions, the Act had been incompatible with their rights under art6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Puligienica Facility Esco SpA v Airgest SpA

European Union Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that the third sub-paragraph of art 1(1) and of Council Directive (EEC) 89-665 were to be interpreted as meaning that a main action for review brought by a tenderer with an interest in obtaining a particular contract who had been or could be adversely affected by an alleged breach of European Union public procurement law or rules transposing that law, with a view to excluding another tenderer, could not be dismissed as inadmissible under national procedural rules which provided that the counterclaim lodged by the other tenderer had to be examined first.

Re K, L & M (children) (child arrangement orders)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court held that owing to the father's reported behaviour it was in the three boys' best interests not to have any face to face contact with him until he made changes to his behaviour. Face to face contact included Face Time and Skype. Contact was to be limited to telephone contact for one hour and further an order was made under of the Children Act 1989 regarding further applications by the father.

Kreis Warendorf v Alo; Osso v Region Hannover

European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that of Directive 2011-95-EU had to be interpreted as meaning that a residence condition imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, constituted a restriction of the freedom of movement guaranteed by that article, even when it did not prevent the beneficiary from moving freely within the territory of the member state that had granted the protection and from staying on a temporary basis in that territory outside the place designated by the residence condition.

*Rutherford and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

Social security Housing benefit. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that regB13 of the amended Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI2006-213, unlawfully discriminated, without an objective and reasonable justification, against female victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation under the 'Sanctuary Scheme' and against disabled children living in specially adapted accommodation who required overnight respite care, contrary to art14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The submissions that there had been a breach of the public sector equality duty under s149 of the were dismissed.

*Mirga v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Samin v Westminster City Council

Social Security Benefit. The Supreme Court dismissed two appeals regarding the eligibility for benefits of European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom. It held that the applicable Regulations did not infringe the rights of the appellants under the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union, and that it was not possible to invoke proportionality to entitle a person to have the right of residence and social assistance in another member state, save perhaps in extreme circumstances that did not apply to the appellants.

Re E (A Child) (Child arrangements order) (S91(14) Application)

Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled on a father's appeal against child arrangements orders and an order made pursuant to s91(14) of the . It held, among other things, that, in respect of the s 91(14) order alone, it was clear that the father had not had sufficient notice of the application that had been made and the manner in which it had been made had not complied with case law or proper procedure. On that one issue, the appeal would be allowed.

Hurley and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

Social Security Benefit. The Administrative Court held that the failure to exempt at least individual family carers from the benefit cap on some who received carer's allowance, under Pt 8A of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, , was unlawful because it amounted to indirect discrimination which was not objectively justifiable. However, the Regulations were not unlawful as disproportionate or unreasonable.