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.
Housing Homeless person. The appellant, whose entire income comprised state benefits, had unsuccessfully applied for homelessness assistance from the respondent local authority. The review decision upheld the determination and concluded that, given the household income, there should have been sufficient flexibility to meet the shortfall in rent. The county court dismissed her appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal and held that benefits income did not have any special status or treatment in the exercise of establishing whether accommodation was affordable, nor was the starting point that benefits were set at subsistence level and were not designed to give a level of flexibility to spend outside maintaining a very basic standard of living on expenditure such as additional housing costs.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made a child arrangements order for indirect contact in favour of the biological father of two children and his male partner. The court further ordered that a preamble about the biological father's entitlement to the children's school reports would be attached to the final order and it made an order restricting further applications, under of the Children Act 1989.
Social security Income support. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to require her to participate in the skills conditionality scheme and the Jobseeker's Allowance Post Work Programme Support measures. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was a sufficiently prescribed description of the scheme, the notice to attend a course had been adequate, the number of proposed actively seeking work steps had not been unlawful and the defendant Secretary of State had not arguably acted unlawfully by having failed to publish a policy or description of the measures.
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley (deceased, acting by her personal representatives)
Social security Disability living allowance. The Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice questions arising from the issue of whether the United Kingdom was precluded, by (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community) from imposing a requirement of residence in Great Britain as a condition of entitlement to disability living allowance and thus depriving a claimant who had gone to live in another Member State of that benefit.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. On the mother's application, it was ordered that all contact between the father and his daughter was suspended indefinitely and an order was made, under s91(14) of the prohibiting the father from making an application for contact or any order under s8 of the Act in respect of his daughter, without the leave of the court, until December 2019. Those orders had been made in the absence of the father. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the father's appeal and remitted the case for rehearing.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The mother appealed against: (i) an order under of the Children Act 1989, prohibiting her from making any further applications without the court's permission until August 2018; and (ii) an order that the father was to make the children available to receive indirect contact from her on a fortnightly basis. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that it could not be shown that the judge had been wrong in his conclusion as to contact. He had also been right in concluding that the children needed the protection of the permission filter in relation to any applications the mother might consider making under any provision of the Act for a substantial period of time.
European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of (on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of of Directive 89-391-EEC) and . The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Rosselle and the Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidit and another, concerning the refusal to grant her a maternity allowance on the ground that she had not completed the minimum contribution period required under national law.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The judge refused the father's application for direct contact with his two daughters and made an order under s91(14) of the . The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal against the orders. It held, inter alia, that there was nothing in the chronology of the proceedings that would lead the court to criticise the way in which the legal system had handled the case. The orders that the judge had made as to contact and under s 91(14) of the Act had been open to him in accordance with the law and nothing said in argument had persuaded the court that he had erred in proceeding as he had.
R (on the application of Hardy) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (Zacchaeus 2000 Trust intervening)
Social security Housing benefit. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to include the care component of his disability living allowance (DLAc) in calculating his income for the purposes of assessing a discretionary house payment. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority's policy of always taking into account DLAc as income when assessing awards of discretionary house payment was unlawful, as it failed to consider the Department of Work and Pensions' guidance. Further, it amounted to discrimination, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Equality Act 2010.