- Removal of spare room subsidy discriminatory in specific circumstances
- Original news
- What was the background to the case?
- What were the issues at appeal?
- The case proceeded on the agreed basis that reg B13 was discriminatory on the grounds of sex and disability—why was this?
- What did the court decide?
- One of the claimants contended that the provisions of EqA 2010, s 149 were breached—how did the court deal with this point?
- Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted and it was suggested that the hearing may coincide with the MA hearing scheduled for March 2016—do you think this is likely, and how do you anticipate matters will progress?
- Are there any further points of interest?
Local Government analysis: Kevin Long, a solicitor at the Lambeth Law Centre, advises that the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Rutherford and A, while of potentially wider significance for similar claimants, is really no more than the tip of a much bigger bedroom tax iceberg.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial