In cases under Article 14 of the ECHR, in conjunction with Article 1/1, J.D. and A v UK, concerned with benefit reductions, the Strasbourg Court, on 24 October 2019, stated general principles, including the following:-

Read more »

In SIMONE v CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (2019) EWHC 2689 (Admin) Lewis J said, at para 63, with respect to Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, that it is helpful to identify the specific function(s) that the public authority is exercising. This is because it is in the exercise of its functions that a public authority is under a duty to have due regard to the specified matters. Lewis J added that the question of what regard is due will be influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to (1) the nature of the decision being taken, (2) the stage of the decision-making process that has been reached, and (3) the particular characteristics of the function being exercised.

In R (Parkin) v SoS for Work and Pensions (2019) EWHC 2356 (Admin) Elisabeth Laing J at paragraph 88 identified four key features relevant to that case (in relation to universal credit) of the many decisions about the scope of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010: (i) Section 149 does not require a substantive result; (ii) it implies a duty to make “reasonable inquiry” into the obvious equal impacts of a decision; (iii) it requires a decision-maker to understand the obvious equality impacts of a decision before adopting a policy; and (iv) complying with it is not a box-ticking exercise.

Read more »

When do contractual rights and expectations amount to A1P1 possessions? When does goodwill qualify for A1P1 Protection? These were the linked substantive issues in SOLARIA ENERGY UK v DBEIS (2019) EWHC 2188 (TCC).

Read more »

There is a failure to have due regard to the PSED before making a decision.  Must that decision be quashed?  No, says the Court of Appeal in Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group Ltd (2019) EWCA Civ 1334, in the context of a decision by a social housing association, exercising public functions, to bring possession proceedings against a physically disabled tenant, where it was highly likely that the decision would not have been substantially different if the breach had not occurred.

Read more »

There is a failure to have due regard to the PSED before making a decision.  Must that decision be quashed?  No, says the Court of Appeal in Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group Ltd (2019) EWCA Civ 1334, in the context of a decision by a social housing association, exercising public functions, to bring possession proceedings against a physically disabled tenant, where it was highly likely that the decision would not have been substantially different if the breach had not occurred.

Read more »

In R (Drexler) v Leicestershire County Council (2019) EWHC 1934 (Admin) Swift J restated the following principles:-

(1) The extent of the ambit of an ECHR right is a matter of assessment: paragraph 24;

(2) For an Article 14 discrimination claim to arise there is no requirement for the substantive right to be infringed: ibid;

Read more »

In London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Patrick (2019) EWHC 1263 (QB) Turner J at paragraph 42 listed the factors which are likely, at least in many instances, to be the most relevant to be considered in the context of possession cases:-

Read more »

In the revised benefit cap case, R (DA) v SoS for Work and Pensions (2019) UKSC 21, the Supreme Court said, with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“the UNCRC”), that:-

Read more »

In R (TP) v SoS for DWP (2019) EWHC 1116 (Admin) Swift J said:-

Read more »