Considers cuts to financial support available to certain potential victims of human trafficking, which the Secretary of State argued was a decision taken by the second defendant contractor to rectify a mistake. The Court held that the changes were a very substantial cut imposed unilaterally by the Home Office, taken on a false basis and that could not stand. There was discrimination in the application of the scheme, as both like cases were treated unalike, and unalike cases treated alike. Inter alia, it fell to the Secretary of State to show that discrimination was objectively justified. Although the onus is on the defendant, there is an overarching standard of review – the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test. Consideration of whether these tests are met requires a fully reasoned case set out by the decision-maker.
Chris Buttler and Ayesha Christie were involved in this case.