Supreme Court
Regina (SG and others)
v
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Child Poverty Action Group and another intervening)
[On appeal from Regina (JS and another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Child Poverty Action Group and another intervening)]
[2015] UKSC 16
2014 April 29, 30;
2015 March 18
Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes JJSC
Social securityWelfare benefitsBenefit capSecretary of State introducing benefit capRegulations implementing benefit cap resulting in differential treatment of men and women by reason of greater number of women in non-working lone parent households in receipt of benefitsWhether indirect discriminatory effect on women’s enjoyment of property rights justifiedWhether legislature’s policy choice manifestly without reasonable foundationWhether policy unjustified in any event if not in best interests of children in households affected by capWhether children’s best interests test apt where question relating to justification of legislation discriminating between men and women Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 14, Pt II, art 1 Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/213), Pt 8A (as inserted by Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2994), reg 2(5)) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (Cm 1976), art 3.1
This content is available only to subscribers. If you have a subscription to this content, please log in.
If not, you can subscribe online, request a free trial, or contact ICLR by email at enquiries@iclr.co.uk or on +44 (0) 207 242 6471 to discuss further options.
JOHs should sign in via eLIS.

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies