0
The Upper Tribunal (“UT”) has published its decision in PR v SSWP, an important case about whether DWP’s backdating rules applicable to the appellant were contrary to Article 14 ECHR: see [2023] UKUT 290 (AAC).
The issue was whether the legislation which prevented the appellant being awarded the limited capability for work related activity element of Universal Credit for the first three months of her claim was contrary to Article 14 ECHR, read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 (“A1P1”). The Secretary of State argued that the appellant’s circumstances were outside the ambit of A1P1 because the three-month delay rule was not a condition of entitlement but rather a matter which related to the mechanism and timing of payment. The UT rejected that argument, accepting the submissions of the Child Poverty Action Group (“CPAG”) that this was wrong, not least because, taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that a state could, for example, introduce a rule that all adults meeting specified conditions were to be entitled to a particular benefit, but only men meeting those conditions were to receive the benefit for the first six months of their claims. The UT allowed the appeal, deciding that reg. 28 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 discriminated against the appellant contrary to Article 14 ECHR and had to be disapplied.
The judgment may be accessed here.
Julia Smyth acted for PR, instructed by CPAG.
