Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2016] All ER (D) 21 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2016] EWCA Civ 413
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division

Underhill, Burnett LJJ and Dame Janet Smith

Representation James Eadie QC, Amy Rogers and Zoe Leventhal (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State in the judicial review appeal. 
  Tom Hickman and Ravi Mehta (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for R and H in the judicial review appeal.  
  James Eadie QC and Zoe Leventhal (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State in the tribunal appeal.
  Tristan Jones for J (instructed by Child Poverty Action Group) in the tribunal appeal.
  Thomas de la Mare QC and Tom Richards (instructed by Child Poverty Action Group) for B in the tribunal appeal.
Judgment Dates: 29 April 2016


Social security - Income support - Jobseeker's allowance - Entitlement - Parliament introducing new legislation retrospectively validating sanctions imposed against claimants of jobseeker's allowance - Individuals issuing proceedings in both Administrative Court and tribunals - Administrative Court finding legislation being incompatible with right to fair trial but dismissing claims based on interference with possessions - Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) concluding legislation to be read down with result sanctions imposed were unlawful but no effect on claimants who had lodged appeals prior to legislation being enacted - Whether retrospective validation of sanctions being incompatible with rights of claimants affected - European Convention on Human Rights, art 6, First Protocol, art 1 .

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

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