Lone parent mothers and their children lose Supreme Court battle over application of benefit cap

The Supreme Court has dismissed linked appeals by lone parent mothers and their children over the application of the so-called ‘benefit cap’.

The cap, which is intended to incentivise work, was originally set at a total of £26,000 per household. However, through the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 it was reduced to £23,000 for a household in London, £20,000 elsewhere.

Single people (including lone parents) are exempt from the revised cap if they work for 16 hours each week.

In R (on the application of DA and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) R (on the application of DS and others) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) [2019] UKSC 21 the appellants argued that in introducing the cap, the government, through Parliament, had discriminated against lone parents of young children, whose childcare obligations severely curtail their ability to work, and against the children themselves.

In the DA case the appellants were three lone parent mothers, two of whom had a child under two at the outset of proceedings, and those two children themselves. In DS, the appellants were two lone parent mothers with nine children, three of whom were under five, and those nine children themselves.

On 22 June 2017 the High Court held in the DA case that the benefit cap unlawfully discriminated against the children under two and their mothers, but on 15 March 2018 the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s order. On 26 March 2018 Lang J formally dismissed the DS claimants’ claims but granted a leap-frog certificate so that they could apply to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a majority of 5-2. Lord Wilson (with whom Lord Hodge agreed) gave the main judgment. Lord Carnwath (with whom Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agreed) and Lord Hodge (with whom Lord Hughes agreed) gave concurring judgments. Lady Hale agreed with Lord Wilson on the principles, but not the outcome. Lord Kerr disagreed with him about both.

The Supreme Court’s press summary can be viewed here and the judgment here.