re sanctions, Reilly etc, the 2013 regs, HRA compatibility etc.

new decision on bailii

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2015/56.html

DB v Sec of State, etc.

read it.  a majority for claimants on various issues, but it WILL go to the CA

Now is it just me, or is the undertone of that decision that the Sec State; in not raising the UT’s concerns before the Supreme Court (despite being asked to do so), rode rough shod over what he has previously termed “the rogue judiciary” and in so doing backed them into a corner whereby they kind of *had to consider the strength of the SC’s assumptions on the validity of the retrospective provisions in the 2013 Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act?

Or to put it another way; might he have just been caught with his trousers down?

Just before an election too. This could be painful for someone!

The SSWP has also been raising spurious arguments around DB in a request to stay a UtT case we have concerning the Mandatory Work Activity Regs - caught with his trousers down and knickers in a twist?

well i’m still half way through it (through having only found it late last night, and being at work since, LOL)

but yes, one rather does get the impression that SSWP told UT they’d tell SC what was going on, but didn’t really…

This will all, eventually, go back to the SC, i would have thought…