Supreme Court to rule next week in linked cases on application of revised benefits cap to lone parents with child under two
The Supreme Court will next week (15 May) hand down its ruling in linked cases on whether the application of the revised benefit cap to lone parents unlawfully discriminates against them and/or their children.
In R (on the application of DA and others)(Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) it was argued that the cap’s application to lone parents with children under two years was contrary to article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read with article 8 and/or Article 2 of the First Protocol and in breach of the United Kingdom’s international obligations under article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The appellants – three lone parents and two of their children who were under two years old (the first appellant was pregnant when the proceedings were issued) – also submitted that its application was irrational.
The background to the case was that the adult appellants were in receipt of benefits and, as they were not working, were subject to the revised benefit cap.
The appellants issued proceedings for judicial review, claiming that the application of the cap to lone parents with at least one child under two was unlawful. It was argued that such households were in a different position from others affected by the cap, and should therefore have been exempted from it in the relevant Regulations, because of the particular difficulty for the parent in finding work compatible with his or her childcare responsibilities.
The claim succeeded in the High Court but the DWP's appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal in DA & Orss, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 504.
The background to the second case, R (on the application of DS and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) – UKSC 2018/0074, was that from 11 January 2017 the cap on the maximum weekly benefit income was lowered from £500 per week to £384.62 (the 'Revised Cap').
The appellants were two single mothers and their children living outside Greater London (at the date of claim, NL had four children between the ages of 9 and 2, and DS had five between 13 and 2, three of whom had significant health needs).
As a result of the Revised Cap NL lost her entitlement to £80 of her weekly income from benefits and DS lost £110. Both women had been unable to find work despite their best efforts.
The High Court granted a ‘leapfrog’ certificate, without deciding the claim on its merits, in order that the Supreme Court could consider whether to join this challenge to the Revised Cap with the narrower challenge in the appeal in DA.
The issues in DS were:
(i) Whether the revised benefit cap introduced in s 96 Welfare Reform Act 2012 (as amended), and applied to the appellants in accordance with part 8A of the Housing Benefit General Regulations 2006 (as amended), discriminated against the children of lone parents and/or female lone parents in breach of article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read with article 1 of the First Protocol and/or article 8; and
(ii) whether, and if so on what basis, compliance with article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was relevant to the determination of the claim.
The cases were heard by a seven-justice panel comprising Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge on 17-19 July 2018.
