New Reilly Court of Appeal judgment
Via the independent:
“We have … held - upholding the decision of the High Court - that in the cases of those claimants who had already appealed against their sanctions the Act was incompatible with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights,” Lord Justice Underhill said.
“Under the Human Rights Act that ‘declaration of incompatibility’ does not mean that the 2013 Act ceases to be effective as regards those claimants; it is up to the Government, subject to any further appeal, to decide what action to take in response.”
And the Guardian:
Padraig Hughes, of Public Interest Lawyers, said: “The court of appeal has now confirmed what the high court made clear in 2014 – that the government’s cynical attempt to introduce retrospective legislation, after it had lost its previous case in the court of appeal, is unlawful and a breach of the Human Rights Act.
[ Edited: 29 Apr 2016 at 01:47 pm by shawn ]
Legal filings indicated that 250,000 people had lost some £130m in benefits. The Court of Appeal suggested the Department for Work and Pensions would owe a mere 1% of that amount, £1.3m, to just 2,500 people ...
... the judges decided that the only rights infringed upon where those of people that had already claimed the benefits docking was unfair. This narrowing of the claimants explains why only a tiny fraction of people will be eligible for a payout.
and full judgement now on bailii
note in particular the last paragraph, which they’ve tried to do in layman’s terms.
Thanks for the bailii link Claire - you always seem to get those posted the second they turn up!
Worth pointing out, I think, that the government was successful in appealing the UT decision which had interpreted the retrospective legislation to try and limit its effect. Assuming no appeal, that would seem to be lights out for any look-alikes which are stayed.
I think that’s right Elliot - summary now up - http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/court-of-appeal-upholds-that-retrospective-legislation-relating-to-back-to[ Edited: 30 Apr 2016 at 07:54 am by Daphne ]
Permission to appeal Reilly and Hewstone  EWCA Civ 413 was refused by the Supreme Court on 6 December 2016 -
‘... because the application does not raise an arguable point of law which ought to be considered at this time. It may well be that this appeal would raise a point which should be considered by the Supreme Court but as it will not affect the rights of the parties in this case, we refuse permission to appeal. However, if the point arises in a case where it will affect the parties’ rights it may well be right to grant permission to appeal.’
Proposed Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (Remedial) Order 2018 resolves the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 is incompatible with the ECHR article 6 right to a fair hearing.
FOI response gives estimate that around 4,000 claimants are due a refund as a result of the remedial order -
The Department is currently working to identify all the relevant cases. The current estimate is that there may potentially be between 3789-4305 individuals in scope… Our current estimate is that the overall amount that may fall to be paid by refunding relevant sanction amounts is in the region of £1.69-1.87 million.’