Social security Income support. The claimant appealed against the judge's finding that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011, were not ultra vires of the Jobseekers Act 1995. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that R (on the application of Reilly and another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (), which quashed similar regulations, was not binding, as the present scheme contained some elements by way of 'description'. Further, the Regulations prescribed a description of the scheme within the meaning of s 17A(1) of the Act.
Social Security Benefit. The claimants challenged the Government's introduction of a cap on welfare benefits on the basis that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, , which had implemented the cap, discriminated unjustifiable between men and women, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimants' judicial review challenge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeal. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, held that, giving due weight to the assessment of the Government and Parliament, the court was not persuaded that the Regulations were incompatible with art 14 of the Convention. The Regulations pursued legitimate aims and, as the question of proportionality involved controversial issues of social and economic policy, the determination of which was pre-eminently the function of democratically elected institutions, it was necessary for the court to give due weight to the considered assessment made by those institutions. It was unnecessary for the court to decide whether the question of whether there had been a breach of art3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Social security Benefit. The appellant had been granted refugee status and sought recovery of a back-payment of income support to the time of her asylum application. She was refused back-payment and her appeals through the tribunal system were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, interpreting s12 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 in the light of art23 of the Geneva Convention, there was no entitlement to such back-payments and there was no express or implied obligation to make a lump sum payment representing the difference between the earlier asylum support payments or benefits in kind and mainstream benefits pursuant to art28 of Council Directive (EC)2004-83.
Contract Loan agreement. The defendant entered into a number of financing arrangements with a consortium of banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), concerning the purchase of a property in Madrid. The rights and obligations under a junior loan, an upside fee agreement (UFA) and a personal loan had been transferred from RBS to the claimants. The defendant defaulted on the personal loan. The claimants claimed the principal sum of 105,201,095.89, to which they claimed to be entitled as a fee due under the UFA, plus interest. The Commercial Court held that a 'payment event' had occurred, pursuant to the events of default under the agreement. Further, a clause in the agreement allowing for the fee, was not unenforceable as a penalty or disguised penalty.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. Following their separation, the mother and father of three children were engaged in long-running private law proceedings in respect of the care of their children, in particular, the amount of time that they should spend with their father. The judge made an order, pursuant to s91(14) of the against the father, prohibiting further applications for a period of three years. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the father's appeal, held, inter alia, that there had been a need for a significant period, not a very long period, but a significant period, of absence of litigation, or at least control of litigation through the filter of s 91(14) of the Act, and three years was not a period that could be properly challenged in the context of the present case.
Social security Housing benefit. The housing benefit payable to the claimants, who were parents with secondary responsibility for their children, had been reduced as a result of the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012, . They sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, as a result of the discretionary housing payments received by each of the claimants, which had completely compensated for the reduction in housing benefit paid to them, none of the claimants had suffered any interference with their family life capable of amounting to a breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. In the course of proceedings relating to the care of two twin boys, the Family Court made a number of rulings that, among other things, restricted but did not remove the father's parental rights, and required the parents to obtain the permission of the court before being allowed to make any further applications under the in the next five years.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned a father's appeal against an order which prevented contact with his child until her eighteenth birthday and which stated requirements in order for the father to succeed in an application for permission to apply to the court for a further order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal to the limited extent that the word 'must', preceding the requirements as set out by the judge in order for the father to apply to the court, should be changed to 'should'.
Social security Housing benefit. The claimants challenged reg B13(5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, on the basis that it was manifestly without reasonable foundation not to make provision for an extra bedroom where a disabled child in a housing benefit claimant's family was a person who required overnight care from a non-resident carer. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the means employed by the housing benefit scheme to achieve the government's policy objective had not been inappropriate or disproportionate in its adverse effects.
Child Care. The judge made a placement order on the basis that, although the father had the capacity to carry out the basic physical parenting of the child, the unanimous professional opinion was that he did not have the capacity to meet the child's identified emotional and psychological needs. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to make the order without further assessment of the situation of the father and child. Further, she had not adequately articulated the reasons to proceed to make a placement order.