*/
Social Security – Benefit. The claimants challenged the Government's introduction of a cap on welfare benefits on the basis that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2994, which had implemented the cap, discriminated unjustifiable between men and women, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimants' judicial review challenge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeal. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, held that, giving due weight to the assessment of the Government and Parliament, the court was not persuaded that the Regulations were incompatible with art 14 of the Convention. The Regulations pursued legitimate aims and, as the question of proportionality involved controversial issues of social and economic policy, the determination of which was pre-eminently the function of democratically elected institutions, it was necessary for the court to give due weight to the considered assessment made by those institutions. It was unnecessary for the court to decide whether the question of whether there had been a breach of art 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Social Security – Benefit. The claimants challenged the Government's introduction of a cap on welfare benefits on the basis that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/2994, which had implemented the cap, discriminated unjustifiable between men and women, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimants' judicial review challenge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeal. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, held that, giving due weight to the assessment of the Government and Parliament, the court was not persuaded that the Regulations were incompatible with art 14 of the Convention. The Regulations pursued legitimate aims and, as the question of proportionality involved controversial issues of social and economic policy, the determination of which was pre-eminently the function of democratically elected institutions, it was necessary for the court to give due weight to the considered assessment made by those institutions. It was unnecessary for the court to decide whether the question of whether there had been a breach of art 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
