From Mental Health Law Online
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories
|SSWP v Slavin (2011) EWCA Civ 1515 — 'The respondent is resident in a specialist care home for people with autistic spectrum disorders and similar conditions. The cost of his accommodation is paid for by the National Health Service. The home is registered as a care home, not a nursing home. Its staff are trained to meet the needs of residents but do not have any medical or nursing qualifications. The specific issue in the appeal is whether the respondent is "maintained free of charge while undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient … in a hospital or similar institution under [the National Health Service Act 2006]", within the meaning of reg. 12A of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991, so as to be disentitled to receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance for which he was a claimant.' [Summary required.]
||2011-12-10||2011 cases, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|R (RJM) v SSWP (2007) EWCA Civ 614 — "For the reasons I have given I would hold that the right to IS is a possession within A1P1 but that RJM's appeal must be dismissed because a person without accommodation does not have an "other status" within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention. If, contrary to that view, RJM does have such a status, the refusal to pay DP to those who do not have accommodation is not unlawful under the Convention because the Secretary of State has justified their differential treatment. I would therefore dismiss the appeal." [Summary required.]
||2010-08-07||2007 cases, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|R (D and M) v SSWP (2010) EWCA Civ 18 — (1) That prisoners detained under s47, s47/49 or s45A, in contrast with civil patients or hospital order patients, receive no welfare benefits until their release date is not unlawful discrimination under Article 14 taken with A1P1. (2) On a proper construction of the statutory language, lifers detained under the MHA are entitled to Income Support or State Pension Credit when they reach their tariff expiry date. [Caution.]
||2010-01-27||2010 cases, Detailed summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|R (EM) v SSWP (2009) EWHC 454 (Admin) — The Regulations which deprive of welfare benefits transferred prisoners (s47/49 and s45A patients until they would be entitled to release if in prison) are lawful; this is because there is enough of a relevant difference between them and civil/s37 patients to justify different treatment (i.e. they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment to which they remain subject); in general, this applies all determinate and indeterminate sentence prisoners, including post-tariff lifers, technical lifers being the only exception because they had not been considered when the Regulations were drawn up and there is not enough of a relevant difference present.
||2009-03-13||2009 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|R (RD) v SSWP (2008) EWHC 2635 (Admin) — Post-tariff lifers who have been transferred to hospital are not entitled to receive Income Support.
||2008-11-24||2008 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|Stec v UK 65731/01 (2006) ECHR 393 — Judgment of Grand Chamber. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14.
||2008-11-24||2006 cases, ECHR, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|Stec v UK 65731/01 (2005) ECHR 924 — Admissibility decision. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14.
||2008-11-24||2005 cases, ECHR, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|R (RJM) v SSWP (2008) UKHL 63 — Social welfare payments come within the scope of Article 1 Protocol 1; homelessness is an "other status" under Article 14; depriving the homeless of disability premiums was justified; the Court of Appeal is free (but not obliged) to follow an ECtHR decision rather than a previous inconsistent CA decision, but (absent wholly exceptional circumstances) must follow any previous House of Lords decision.
||2008-11-23||2008 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
The following 8 pages are in this category.