PR v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2023] UKUT 290 (AAC)
THE KING (on the application of Flinn Kays) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
2 December 2022
[2022] EWCA Civ 1593
Court of Appeal
A disabled student sued the government because new rules meant he couldn't get universal credit unless he'd already proven he couldn't work. The court said the government didn't have to consult before making the rules and that the rules weren't unfair, even though they made it harder for some students to get help.
Key Facts
- •Flinn Kays, a disabled student, was refused universal credit because he lacked a pre-claim determination of limited capability for work (LCW), a requirement introduced by the Universal Credit (Exceptions to the Requirement not to be receiving Education) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
- •Kays challenged the 2020 Regulations on grounds of irrationality and discrimination.
- •The 2020 Regulations amended the 2013 Regulations, altering the eligibility criteria for universal credit for students with disabilities.
- •The Secretary of State did not consult publicly before enacting the 2020 Regulations, arguing it restored original policy intent.
- •Kays' claim for universal credit was initially rejected due to a departmental error and was eventually granted after an LCW assessment but with delays, leading to financial loss.
Legal Principles
There is no statutory or common law obligation to consult before making regulations.
Court of Appeal judgment
Judicial review will only succeed if a decision is irrational, meaning it is not a decision that a reasonable decision-maker could have reached.
Court of Appeal judgment
The public sector equality duty (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) requires due regard to eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity, but not achieving a particular outcome.
Equality Act 2010, section 149; Court of Appeal judgment
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14; Court of Appeal judgment
Courts should accord a high level of respect to the judgment of public authorities in social and economic policy, including social security benefits. Bright-line rules may be necessary, and courts should be slow to find such choices irrational.
R (Pantellerisco) [2021] EWCA Civ 1454
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court found that the Secretary of State's decision not to consult was rational; the 2020 Regulations did not achieve their purpose in an irrational or arbitrary way; the Regulations' purpose was not irrational or discriminatory; and the Secretary of State had due regard to the equality impact.