Social Security in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Octubre 2008

    Equally, the fact that the line may have been drawn imperfectly does not mean that the policy cannot be justified. Of course, there will come a point where the justification for a policy is so weak, or the line has been drawn in such an arbitrary position, that, even with the broad margin of appreciation accorded to the state, the court will conclude that the policy is unjustifiable.

  • Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 Abril 2001

  • Humphreys v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
    • Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 2012

    The phrase "manifestly without reasonable foundation" dates back to James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123, para 46, which concerned the compatibility of leasehold enfranchisement with article 1 of the First Protocol. In Stec, the Court clearly applied this test to the state's decisions as to when and how to correct the inequality in the state pension ages, which had originally been introduced to correct the disadvantaged position of women.

  • An application by Siobhan McLaughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 Agosto 2018

    Given the direct link with children, there cannot be much doubt that the provision of widowed parent's allowance is an action concerning children. Article 2 of the UNCRC requires state parties to “respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's … birth or other status”.

  • Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Julio 1955

    But, without any such misconception appearing ex facie, it may be that the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal.

  • R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    • House of Lords
    • 26 Mayo 2005

    There may be such an obvious, relevant difference between the claimant and those with whom he seeks to compare himself that their situations cannot be regarded as analogous. Then the court's scrutiny may best be directed at considering whether the differentiation has a legitimate aim and whether the means chosen to achieve the aim is appropriate and not disproportionate in its adverse impact.

  • R (on the application of SG and Others (previously JS and Others)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 2016

    That consideration is relevant to these appeals, since the question of proportionality involves controversial issues of social and economic policy, with major implications for public expenditure. The determination of those issues is pre-eminently the function of democratically elected institutions. It is therefore necessary for the court to give due weight to the considered assessment made by those institutions.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
Forms
See all results