SG & Ors (Previously JS & Ors), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions

For social-benefit measures with a disproportionate sex impact, justification is assessed by whether the measure is manifestly without reasonable foundation. Courts must scrutinise the reasons advanced, while giving considerable weight to politically contested choices debated and affirmatively approved by Parliament.

Broad fairness between working and non-working households, changing welfare dependency and incentivising work may justify including child-related benefits in a cap; saving money alone cannot. Children's best interests are a primary consideration, but no fixed sequence is required. A benefit cap may engage Article 8 where it can force families from their homes and support networks, yet Article 8 generally imposes no duty to provide a home or welfare support. A very high threshold applies to exceptional positive obligations. The appeal was dismissed.

This was an appeal by four benefit recipients from a judicial review decision concerning the benefit cap established by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and associated regulations. The Divisional Court upheld the Secretary of State's position in [2013] EWHC 3350 (QB).

The appellants alleged discrimination against women, including victims of domestic violence, infringement of children's rights, unlawful interference with family life, and irrationality. The appeal also raised the possible effects of the cap on housing affordability, homelessness, and access to support networks. The central questions were whether the cap was justified under Articles 14, A1P1 and 8, whether children's best interests had been properly considered, and whether the decision-making process was irrational.

1. Article 14 and A1P1. The appeal court applied the manifestly without reasonable foundation test. It is stringent, but does not make social-benefit policy a no-go area. Courts must scrutinise the reasons relied upon. The affirmative approval of the regulations by both Houses, following substantial debate, was entitled to considerable weight. The aims of fairness between working taxpayers and benefit recipients, changing welfare dependency, incentivising work, and achieving longer-term savings were legitimate. Saving money alone could not justify discrimination, but it was permissible when considered with the wider objectives. The discriminatory effect on women was therefore justified.
2. Domestic violence. The court declined to determine whether victims of domestic violence constituted an Article 14 status. None of the adult appellants had received double housing payments following a flight from violence, and the Government intended to reconsider the definition of exempt accommodation. Relief was therefore inappropriate, although a future challenge to amended regulations remained possible.
3. Children. The best interests of children had to be a primary consideration. This required them to remain at the forefront of the decision-maker's mind and to receive appropriate weight, but did not require conflicting considerations to be addressed in a prescribed order.
4. Article 8. The cap engaged Article 8 because families could be forced to move from existing homes and support networks. It did not, however, establish a breach. Article 8 generally imposed no duty to provide a home or welfare support. A positive obligation could arise exceptionally in extreme circumstances, particularly where children or disabled persons were affected. The circumstances of the families before the court did not approach destitution. The possible application of the same justification test to a free-standing Article 8 claim was unnecessary to the result.
5. Irrationality and result. The [1977] AC 1014 principle concerning reasonable steps to obtain relevant information had no room to operate where the scheme had undergone detailed Parliamentary scrutiny. The appeals were dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal against the Divisional Court's judgment was dismissed.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court. The Divisional Court upheld the benefit-cap scheme and the Secretary of State's justification in [2013] EWHC 3350 (QB).