Category: human rights

‘In order to make good an art 14 claim, a claimant has to establish that (a) the Jones_Jcircumstances fall within the ambit of a substantive Convention right, (b) the claimant has a relevant status for the purposes of art 14, (c) they have been treated differently from others in a similar situation, by reason of their status; if so the burden is then on the state to demonstrate (d) whether the difference in treatment is objectively justified. In a Thlimmenos claim, the third question becomes “they have been treated the same as others in a relevantly different situation”. The way in which those issues were resolved by Lord Wilson for the majority is summarised above, but the court’s analysis of status and justification is worth some closer consideration.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 2nd July 2019

Source: ukscblog.com

‘In these joined appeals, the Supreme Court considered whether the “revised benefit Jones_Jcap” – the effect of which is to restrict the maximum amount of benefits payable to couples and lone parents to £23000 in London and £20000 elsewhere – discriminated against the lone parents of young children, and against the children themselves. The Supreme Court decided by a majority of 5-2 that it did not, though there were various differences of opinion even amongst the majority.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 2nd July 2019

Source: ukscblog.com