Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Back to Work.

Back to Work.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun May 01, 2016 9:34 am

The Government has lost the latest round of a legal battle over its back-to-work schemes.
Three Court of Appeal judges in London have dismissed its challenge against an earlier High Court ruling.
The Government had appealed in a bid to prevent thousands of individuals who had jobseeker payments stopped from clawing back millions of pounds in lost benefits.
Friday's decision is the latest in litigation over back-to-work schemes following a Supreme Court ruling in October 2013.
Five justices at the highest court in the land ruled, in what became known as the Poundland case, that the Government's flagship back-to-work schemes were flawed because sufficient information had not been given to claimants to enable them to make representations before benefits were stopped.

The Government brought in emergency retrospective legislation, the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, to "protect the public purse" and stop the payouts.
It was argued the sanctions had been justified and the claimants would be receiving "undeserved windfall payments".
But a High Court judge, Mrs Justice Lang, declared the 2013 Act "incompatible" with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to fair hearings...


https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/gover ... 06127.html

It seems to me that the grounds for taking this matter to appeal were not reasonable, therefore the delay in the payments introduced by this appeal were not reasonable so that is another breach of Article Six...
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9162
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Back to Work.

Postby atticus » Sun May 01, 2016 11:04 am

Permission to appeal will have been given. That indicates that at least one judge thought that there were questions that merited consideration by the Court of Appeal.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18328
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Back to Work.

Postby Hairyloon » Tue May 03, 2016 7:29 am

atticus wrote:Permission to appeal will have been given...

I imagine it is rather difficult to refuse permission to appeal to the government: they are likely to run to the press crying about the constitution: it is a tactic with proven effectiveness.
That indicates that at least one judge thought that there were questions that merited consideration by the Court of Appeal.

That does not mean that the delay induced by those considerations was a reasonable one.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/413.html
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9162
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Back to Work.

Postby atticus » Tue May 03, 2016 11:04 am

Interesting. I see that the Claimants filed a cross-appeal. They also wanted the earlier decision reviewed by the Court of Appeal.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18328
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Back to Work.

Postby atticus » Tue May 03, 2016 2:16 pm

A successful party generally cross-appeals for one or both of two reasons.

First, to increase the damages award.

Second, to have the decision upheld on different or additional grounds.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18328
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Back to Work.

Postby Hairyloon » Tue May 03, 2016 3:38 pm

I would guess at the latter: as I recall there were significant points upon which they lost.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9162
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.


Return to Human Rights Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest