Flag of England.gif

R (RJM) v SSWP (2007) EWCA Civ 614: Difference between revisions

m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/ew\/cases\/EWCA\/Civ\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii: [$1] EWCA Civ $2}}")
m (Text replacement - " [Summary required.]" to "")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
"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.]
"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."


==Related cases==
==Related cases==

Latest revision as of 19:17, 26 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."

Related cases

External link

BAILII