- Applied — Peiris, R (on the application of) v First-Tier Tribunal & Ors 2023-12-21
“…at the correct approach now to questions of justification was set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26, [2022] AC 233. That approach had been applied by the Supreme Court in this context in R (A and another) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and another…”
- Cited — Dudley Metropolitan Council v Marilyn Mailley 2023-10-27
“…In R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26, [2022] AC 223, Lord Reed PSC held at paragraph 71:…”
- Cited — Daniel Richard Jwanczuk v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-10-11
“…[2021] UKSC 26, [2022] AC 223. It is sufficient at this stage to note three points which are uncontroversial:…”
- Cited — Re A (Parental Responsibility) 2023-06-16
“…R (SC and others) v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26,…”
- Cited — Re A (Parental Responsibility) 2023-06-16
“…ed and unmarried fathers in this context, Mr Jaffey referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Scottish case of R (SC) v Works and Pensions Secretary [2021] UKSC 26. In the course of an extended passage in his judgment, commencing at paragraph 97, Lord Reed PSC conducted a comprehensive review of the case law relating to t…”
- Cited — SWP, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2023-04-25
“…d authoritative articulation of the approach to Article 14 in the Supreme Court was given by Lord Reed PSC in R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26; [2022] AC 223, at para. 37, where he summarised the general approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) in Carson v United Kingdom (2…”
- Cited — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Lisa Smith 2023-04-05
“… ground for a difference in treatment. The Secretary of State submitted, by reference to paragraphs 98, 99, 115 and 135 of R (SC) v Work and Pensions Secretary [2021] UKSC 26; [2022] AC 223 that it was difficult to describe a general rule which described how a difference in treatment could be justified. States had a wide margin of a…”
- Explained — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Lisa Smith 2023-04-05
“… there is a breach of article 14 involves four stages, as Lord Reed explained in paragraphs 36 and 37 of Regina (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26; [2022] AC 223. He referred to the language of article 14 and to paragraph 61 of the decision of the Grand Chamber in Carson v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR 13…”
- Followed — T & Ors. v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-01-17
“…In terms of the standard required for justification, the judge summarised Lord Reed’s conclusions in R(SC) v SSWP [2021] UKSC 26, [2022] AC 223 (“SC”) following Lord Reed’s extensive review of the case law (both European and domestic). In light of SC he approached the justification quest…”
- Cited — Friends of the Earth Limited, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for International Trade/UK Export Finance (UKEF) & Anor 2023-01-13
“…te for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, [2018] AC 61 at [55] (often referred to as Miller (1)), and R (SC) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26, [2022] AC 223 at [74]-[91] (SC)).…”
- Cited — Heidi Crowter and Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2022-11-25
“…[2021] UKSC 26, [2022] AC 223.…”
- Cited — Lisa Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities & Anor. 2022-10-31
“…ect of detailed consideration by Lord Reed (with whom Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin and Lady Black agreed) in R (SC) v Work and Pensions Secretary [2021] UKSC 26; [2022] AC 223 between [97] and [162]. His conclusions were set out at [159] to [162]. He favoured a suitably flexible approach, giving “appropriate respect to…”
- Cited — EOG v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-03-17
“…State’s policy as expressed in the Guidance. She sought to justify her change of position on the basis that in R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2021] UKSC 26, [2021] 3 WLR 428, in which judgment had been handed down only a few days previously, the Supreme Court had re-stated the relevant principles in a way which ma…”
- Cited — MD v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2022-03-16
“…[2021] UKSC 26, [2022] AC 223, where he says:…”
- Cited — CN (R on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2022-02-04
“…nction with one or more of the substantive rights or freedoms set forth in the Convention or its protocols”: R (SC) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26, [2021] 3 WLR 428 at [36] (“SC”). Therefore, it is not enough for CN to say that he is experiencing discrimination. He must show that he is experiencing discri…”
- Considered — Aviva Insurance Limited v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2022-01-14
“…xplained at paragraph 64 by using materials in this way the Court would not be “questioning” proceedings in Parliament. In R(SC) v Works and Pensions Secretary [2021] UKSC 26; [2021] 3 WLR 428 at paragraph 163 Lord Reed returned to the use which can be made of Parliamentary debates and other Parliamentary material when considering w…”
- Cited — H (R on the application of) v Swindon Borough Council 2021-12-03
“…rope Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 (“the Anti-Trafficking Convention”). The Supreme Court in R(SC) v Work and Pension Secretary [2021] UKSC 26; [2021] 3 WLR 428 at paragraph 81 recorded that international courts, such as the ECtHR, in defining the meaning of terms and notions in the text of the ECHR, …”
- Cited — The Motherhood Plan (R on the application of) v HM Treasury 2021-11-24
“… is in paras. 49-53 of the judgment of Lord Reed (with which the other members of the Supreme Court agreed) in R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2021] UKSC 26, [2021] 3 WLR 428. At para. 49 Lord Reed quotes a passage from the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECtHR”) in Guberina v Croatia(2018) 66 …”