R (RJM) v SSWP (2007) EWCA Civ 614: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "{{stub}} " to "") |
m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/ew\/cases\/EWCA\/Civ\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii: [$1] EWCA Civ $2}}") |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
[ | {{#bailii: [2007] EWCA Civ 614}} | ||
Revision as of 10:12, 25 April 2021
"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.]
Related cases
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: