‘ local authority’s policy of taking into account the care component of disability living allowance when assessing the amount of a discretionary house payment (DHPs) was unlawful, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 31st March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Oh, we have been waiting for this one. According to DWP survey evidence, some 75% of Councils take Disability Living Allowance into account as income when deciding on an award of Discretionary Housing Payments. This judicial review concerned Sandwell Council’s policy of doing just that. The implications are clearly of significance for other councils, and will potentially impact many disabled people faced with the bedroom tax.’
Nearly Legal, 30th March 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th March 2015
‘Jan Ellis, chartered accountant, of Ellis Foster LLP, a firm which specialises in advising family lawyers on tax-related family law issues, explains the budget changes of most relevance to family lawyers.’
Family Law Week, 18th March 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The case of Stephen and Ellen Debruin, recently the subject of an application for leave to appeal by Mr Debruin, reopens the argument about whether the current wide discretion of judges in our divorce laws results in consistent and fair results.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 23rd March 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘R(on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16. The Supreme Court was sharply divided yesterday over whether the benefit cap breaches the Human Rights Act.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th March 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld an appeal by a homeless mother of five over a London borough’s offer of accommodation 50 miles away near Milton Keynes.
The Court heard oral submissions in Nzolameso v City of Westminster earlier this month (17 March). It has now quashed Westminster City Council’s decision that it had properly discharged its duty to secure accommodation available for occupation by the appellant.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The supreme court has ruled that the government’s benefit cap, which limits unemployed claimants to £500 a week in total welfare payments, is lawful.’
The Guardian, 18th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Supreme court will decide on Wednesday if a cornerstone of the coalition government’s benefits policy is unlawful.’
The Guardian, 18th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A champion golfer who claimed £26,000 in benefits saying he was too ill to walk but played the sport regularly has been jailed for six months.’
BBC News, 12th March 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In Blakesley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 141 the Court of Appeal considered whether the UK Government is in breach of its international obligations towards refugees because of the lack of any provision to make back-payments of welfare benefits to those asylum seekers who, upon inquiry, are found to be refugees.’
Free Movement, 12th March 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘A disabled adult has successfully challenged in the High Court aspects of a county council’s policy on charging for adult non-accommodation services.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Blakesley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 141; [2015] WLR (D) 96
‘The Government was not obliged to make lump sum payments to successful applicants for asylum representing the difference between the support they received while their application was being processed and mainstream benefits.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In January 2014, the Government introduced a number of measures aimed at restricting EEA migrants’ access to income-based JSA. A key change was the introduction of a statutory presumption that entitlement to income-based JSA (‘JSA(IB)’) would be limited to a period of three months (or six months for EEA nationals with retained worker status) unless the jobseeker could pass a Genuine Prospect of Work (GPoW) assessment.’
Free Movement, 24th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘European Union law gave a Zambrano carer, being a non-European Union citizen responsible for the care of an EU citizen child, the right to reside in the United Kingdom from the time when it became apparent that she qualified as a Zambrano carer. However, it did not give her an entitlement to social assistance on the same basis as an EU citizen lawfully resident in the UK. It was for national law to determine the level of benefits to which she was entitled.’
WLR Daily, 10th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘There must be times when Court of Appeal judges think that they have bit parts in an ongoing drama – they have a walk on role. And that must be how the Court felt in Sanneh v SSWP and others [2015] EWCA Civ 49, which concerns the eligibility rules for Zambrano carers of a raft of social assistance benefits. Leading QCs and junior barristers appeared on all sides in a right ding dong that is bound to end up at the Supreme Court, which almost certainly will refer the issues to the CJEU. It also provides a glimpse of how the recent, potentially contradictory, judgments of the CJEU in Brey and Dano are, or might be, treated (although it looks like the UKSC will have the next bite of those rather earlier, in the Mirga and Samin appeals in March) and the question of the ambit of “social assistance”, which in itself is not uninteresting, is also raised, but parked by the CA, in these appeals ([84] – note: this is an important point for the future).’
NearlyLegal, 12th February 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘If permission to appeal against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not be able to appeal that decision. This is because it is an excluded decision under s. 13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3).’
Free Movement, 16th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘Anita Mehta, barrister of Crown Office Row, Brighton, argues that Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 applications should not be regarded as the domain of footballers’ girlfriends or the uber-wealthy but as a powerful tool for meeting children’s needs in a wide variety of cases.’
Full story
Family Law Week, 6th February 2015
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The maximum administrative penalty for benefit fraud that can be offered as an alternative to prosecution could be doubled under government proposals.’
BBC News, 29th January 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Here is an interesting First Tier Tribunal bedroom tax appeal decision from Bexleyheath. [Decision notice]. It is a decision made after the Fife Upper Tribunal decision, but upholds the tenant’s appeal on the basis, in part, that the room is inadequately sized to be a bedroom, as well as being just too damn hot.’
NearlyLegal, 11th January 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024