- Cited — Daniel Richard Jwanczuk v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-10-11
“…[2019] UKSC 21,…”
- Cited — Katie-Leigh Webb-Harnden v London Borough of Waltham Forest 2023-08-22
“…that the benefits cap “indirectly discriminated against women over men” (citing the Supreme Court decision in R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21, [2019] 1 WLR 3289). They stated that reliance on the benefits cap to justify placements was based on a discriminatory form of benefit and that the respondent’…”
- Applied — Aviva Insurance Limited v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2022-01-14
“…In R(DA) v Work and Pensions Secretary [2019] UKSC 21; [2019] 1 WLR 3289, the Supreme Court confirmed that the manifestly without reasonable foundation test applied to all parts of the four stage analysis. Lord Wi…”
- Cited — The Motherhood Plan (R on the application of) v HM Treasury 2021-11-24
“…t approach in subsequent cases in 2015 and 2016, the Supreme Court had confirmed it again in emphatic terms in R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2019] UKSC 21, [2019] 1 WLR 3289. At para. 65 of his judgment in DA, Lord Wilson JSC said:…”
- Cited — Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) 2021-02-18
“…In the second case, R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21, [2019] 1 WLR 3289, the challenge was also to legislation concerning a benefits cap, this time under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 and subordinate legis…”
- Cited — Delve & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions 2020-09-15
“…in DA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21, [2019] 1 WLR 3289 (‘DA’). Lord Wilson said at [66] of DA:…”
- Cited — TD & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions 2020-05-12
“…licable test in law is whether the difference in treatment is “manifestly without reasonable foundation”: see R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21; [2019] 1 WLR 3289, at para. 65. In that passage Lord Wilson JSC said:…”
- Cited — McConnell & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales 2020-04-29
“…“authoritative guidance” on the CRC: see e.g. R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21; [2019] 1 WLR 3289, at para. 69 (Lord Wilson JSC). But, as Lord Wilson emphasised in that passage, a General Comment is no more than guidance, which is not bin…”
- Considered — Drexler, R (On the Application Of) v Leicestershire County Council 2020-04-07
“…ing had taken place before Swift J but before he gave judgment, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21; [2019] 1 WLR 3289. In that case, having considered earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, Lord Wilson JSC said, at para. 65:…”
- Applied — AR & SXC, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2020-01-29
“…Mr Milford submits that Swift J applied the wrong test, as set out by the Supreme Court in R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21; [2019] 1 WLR 3289,by applying a conventional proportionality approach and not applying the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test.…”
- Cited — Simawi v London Borough of Haringey 2019-10-31
“…eldsen v Denmark (1976) 2 EHRR 711. More recent case law, however, suggests that a broader approach is needed: R (DA) vSecretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21, [2019] 1 WLR 3298. In JT v First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2018] EWCA Civ 1735, [2019] 1 WLR 1313 this court held that living with another p…”
- Applied — Simawi v London Borough of Haringey 2019-10-31
“…d been some debate about whether that test applied at all stages of the analysis. That debate was resolved in R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21, [2019] 1 WLR 3289. The case concerned a cap on welfare benefits which was challenged by lone parents. Lord Wilson (with whom the majority agreed) said at [59]…”