Source: https://gclaw.wordpress.com/
Timestamp: 2015-08-28 06:59:42
Document Index: 728894998

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 22', 'art 9', 'art 11', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

Do right, fear no-one! | Garden Court Chambers Blog
The legal challenge to the ‘bedroom tax’ – a new hope	Posted on July 6, 2015	by amycarrington Desmond Rutledge reviews the prospects of the bedroom tax litigation succeeding in the light of the recent Supreme Court judgment in the household benefit cap case.
Welfare Benefits and Human Rights
The importance of social security is recognised in a range of international instruments. A right to social security was adopted in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (art 22) and was subsequently enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966 (ICESCR) as a right of “everyone” (art 9). The ICESCR also makes clear that circumstances where an individual is permitted to become destitute would be in breach of the right to an adequate standard of living, which includes adequate food, clothing and housing (art 11). Continue reading →
Tackling hate speech aimed at Gypsies, Travellers and Roma	Posted on March 6, 2015	by amycarrington Marc Willers QC explores the hate speech targeting Roma, Gypsies and Travellers and the power to prosecute perpetrators for incitement to racial hatred.
On 27 January 2015 we commemorated the 70th anniversary of the day when Soviet troops liberated the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Quite rightly we reflected upon the terrible fact that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. Yet there was little mention of the hundreds of thousands of Romani Gypsy and Sinti[1] people that were also murdered by the Nazis during World War II in what has become known as the Porrajmos (the ‘Devouring’). Continue reading →
Judge rules that Mr Pickles unlawfully discriminated against Gypsies and Travellers	Posted on February 12, 2015	by amycarrington Marc Willers QC explores the recent High Court judgment in which it was found that the conduct of Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, constituted indirect discrimination against Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers.
Meeting the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers should be relatively simple, but it has always been a contentious political issue because of widespread prejudice amongst the settled population and nimbyism. Planning permission is required for use of land as a caravan site and permission for sites in the Green Belt will only be granted in very special circumstances. Continue reading →
Is the Cart-threshold being set too high?	Posted on January 6, 2015	by amycarrington Desmond Rutledge and Zubier Yazdani consider the hurdles facing welfare benefit claimants seeking to use the Cart test.
Speaking generally, a First-tier Tribunal (‘FtT’) has a wide discretion when making case management decisions, such as whether to adjourn, so long as it has regard to the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly (Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Regulations 2008, SI No 2685, rule 2(1)). There is no specific definition in the Rules as to what ‘justly and fairly’ means. However, rule 2(1) is informed by the common law rules on natural justice and the right to a fair hearing enshrined in article 6(1) of the ECHR. In R (MM & DM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1565, the Court of Appeal upheld a finding that claimants with mental health problems suffer a ‘substantial disadvantage’ within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, s.20(3), compared to other claimants in the assessment of their eligibility to Employment and Support Allowance. The substantial disadvantage point and how it was taken in into account by the Rules was at the heart of the legal challenge described below. Continue reading →
Tagged welfare benefits	|
Challenging a Refusal of Permission to Appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) in a Welfare Benefits Case – A Practice Note	Posted on January 6, 2015	by amycarrington Desmond Rutledge provides a practice note on challenging a refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) in a welfare benefits case.
If permission to appeal against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not be able to appeal that decision. This is because it is an excluded decision under s. 13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3). Continue reading →
How to be a feminist lawyer	Posted on October 27, 2014	by amycarrington Elizabeth Woodcraft and Alison Diduck, a Professor at University College London, speak about what it means to be a feminist barrister.
Around the world, feminists have been developing an important critique of legal systems and the assumptions underpinning law making. Continue reading →
Are welfare benefits exempt from bank charges under section 187(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992?	Posted on September 4, 2014	by amycarrington Desmond Rutledge considers whether the protection conferred on welfare benefits under Social Security legislation continues once those benefits have been paid into a current bank account.
Are welfare benefits protected from recovery of a debt owed to a bank?
Welfare benefits are paid to cover the recipient’s essential living expenses and, where applicable, to contribute to their housing costs (see Burnip v Birmingham City Council & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 629, at [32]-[33], [50] and R (MM & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1900 (Admin) at [48]). Where, however, welfare benefits are paid into the claimant’s current account, the bank or building society can use the money in that account to make repayments towards bank loans or credit cards, and where the account goes into debit, on interest payments and bank charges, even if this results in the claimant having insufficient funds to cover essential payments. Continue reading →
Tagged Social security, welfare benefits	|
Recent Posts	The legal challenge to the ‘bedroom tax’ – a new hope
Garden Court's @REBEKAHWK's new blog post on what an unfair hearing looks like: bit.ly/1Jlw2dY #familylaw 15 hours ago
Moroccan national's 8 month detention 'unlawful' bit.ly/1JoeyQe Garden Court's @gregoceallaigh & Stephanie Harrison QC representing 16 hours ago
RT @_Paul_Clark: The @gardencourtlaw Fundamental Rights Conference is on Sat 10th October. Will be a truly fascinating event! To book: http… 19 hours ago
Human rights groups face global crackdown 'not seen in a generation' bit.ly/1Igzq89 22 hours ago
RT @ILPAimmigration: Practice & procedures in the higher courts w J Farbey @DoughtyStImm & A Smith @gardencourtlaw Join us on 17 Sept 2015 … 23 hours ago
July 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 Do right, fear no-one!	The Twenty Ten Theme.	Blog at WordPress.com.
Do right, fear no-one!	Blog at WordPress.com. The Twenty Ten Theme.	Follow