Matrix Judgments & Commentary
Matrix’s Legal Support Service produce summaries of cases that Matrix members are involved in, which you can find below. You can browse these through the search function on the right.
R (Kaiyam) & Anor v Secretary of State for Justice  EWCA Civ 1587
There was a conflict between House of Lords and ECtHR jurisprudence. The Court was bound to follow the House of Lords. However, the conflict should be resolved and therefore an appeal to the Supreme Court would be allowed. The judge had been correct to dismiss the common law claim as the system was not an unreasonable one.
No general requirement under EU for Member States to provide parents with particular levels of support
R (HC) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions & Ors  EWHC 3874 (Admin)
Whether three amending regulations were discriminatory and/or compatible with EU law. Held: the regulations did not discriminate against the claimant, nor did they breach the ECHR. There was no breach of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The defendants were fully aware of the equality implications of the proposed regulations.
Powers to safeguard children in need could be exercised outside local authority area when the child was outside of the area
R (J) v Worcestershire County Council  EWHC 3845 (Admin)
The powers under the Children Act 1989, s 17(1) were capable of being exercised outside the area of the local authority and at a time when the child himself was outside that area. S 17 conferred a broad general duty and there was no evidence that Parliament intended to restrict the provisions.
Cessation of Housing Benefit after 52 weeks as a hospital patient – which indirectly discriminated against the mentally ill – was justified
Obrey & Ors v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  EWCA Civ 1584
Appeal against a decision that the 52 week rule with regards to absence from home for the purposes of Housing Benefit did indirectly discriminate against the mentally ill but was justified because it was not manifestly without reasonable foundation.
Bull & Anor v Hall & Anor  UKSC 73
The majority held that a policy restricting double bedrooms in a hotel to heterosexual married couples was directly discriminatory under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2000, and in any event was non-justifiable indirect discrimination.