Judgement of Cait Reilly and Jamie Wilson V`s DWP
back-to-work scheme
The awaited Judgment in the Cait Reilly and Jamie Wilson case regarding the DWP re back-to-work scheme will be given next Wednesday 30 October 2013 at 09.45 hours in courtroom 2.
www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/future-judgments.html
www.supremecourt.gov.uk/current-cases/CC.../case_2013_0064.html
On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division England and Wales
Issue
Are the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 (“2011 Regulations”) ultra vires section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995 (“1995 Act”)?
Facts
This appeal concerns a challenge to the validity of the 2011 Regulations made by the Secretary of State arising in relation to two “work for your benefits” schemes involving the Respondents.
In 2012 the Respondents sought judicial review on the following 4 grounds: (1) the 2011 Regulations were ultra vires s.17A of the 1995 Act as they failed to prescribe (i) a description of each scheme, (ii) the circumstances in which a person can be required to participate in the scheme, or (iii) the period participants are required to undertake the scheme; (2) The 2011 Regulations were unlawful in the absence of published policy as to the scheme’s nature and circumstances requiring individuals to undertake unpaid work; (3) the notice provisions in Regulation 4 of the 2011 Regulations requiring participants to work were not complied with for both Respondents; and (4) the 2011 Regulations violate ECHR Article 4 as the schemes constitute forced labour.
The High Court held: (1) the broad description in Regulation 2 of 2011 Regulations of the schemes was adequate to comply with s.17A of the 1995 Act. (2) Publishing particularised details of each scheme was impracticable and unnecessary. (3) The notice requirements of Regulation 4 were not met for Miss Reilly (admitted by the Secretary of State) nor for Mr Wilson, who was given insufficient information on sanctions for not participating in a scheme. The judge found no breach of Article 4 as the arrangements, if properly made, were not outside the powers of the 1995 Act.
The Court of Appeal upheld these findings except in the crucial respect of quashing the 2011 Regulations for being ultra vires s.17A of the 1995 Act for failing to prescribe a description of each scheme in the Regulations. Merely naming the scheme was insufficient. The Secretary of State appeals this decision, and that Mr Wilson’s notice did not comply with Regulation 4, and the Respondents reserves the right to cross appeal on the need for published policy and breach of Article 4 plus an additional breach of ECHR Article 6 by the Secretary of State now fast-tracking a Bill (with retrospective effect) to unwind the Court of Appeal’s decision.
What level of detail is required by Regulation 2(4)(c) and (e) of the 2011 Regulations to be specified in notices provided to those required to participate in such schemes?
Subject Matter catchwords for indexing
Judicial Review – Secondary Legislation - Ultra Vires - Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 – Jobseekers Act 1995
The awaited Judgment in the Cait Reilly and Jamie Wilson case regarding the DWP re back-to-work scheme will be given next Wednesday 30 October 2013 at 09.45 hours in courtroom 2.
www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/future-judgments.html
www.supremecourt.gov.uk/current-cases/CC.../case_2013_0064.html
On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Civil Division England and Wales
Issue
Are the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 (“2011 Regulations”) ultra vires section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995 (“1995 Act”)?
Facts
This appeal concerns a challenge to the validity of the 2011 Regulations made by the Secretary of State arising in relation to two “work for your benefits” schemes involving the Respondents.
In 2012 the Respondents sought judicial review on the following 4 grounds: (1) the 2011 Regulations were ultra vires s.17A of the 1995 Act as they failed to prescribe (i) a description of each scheme, (ii) the circumstances in which a person can be required to participate in the scheme, or (iii) the period participants are required to undertake the scheme; (2) The 2011 Regulations were unlawful in the absence of published policy as to the scheme’s nature and circumstances requiring individuals to undertake unpaid work; (3) the notice provisions in Regulation 4 of the 2011 Regulations requiring participants to work were not complied with for both Respondents; and (4) the 2011 Regulations violate ECHR Article 4 as the schemes constitute forced labour.
The High Court held: (1) the broad description in Regulation 2 of 2011 Regulations of the schemes was adequate to comply with s.17A of the 1995 Act. (2) Publishing particularised details of each scheme was impracticable and unnecessary. (3) The notice requirements of Regulation 4 were not met for Miss Reilly (admitted by the Secretary of State) nor for Mr Wilson, who was given insufficient information on sanctions for not participating in a scheme. The judge found no breach of Article 4 as the arrangements, if properly made, were not outside the powers of the 1995 Act.
The Court of Appeal upheld these findings except in the crucial respect of quashing the 2011 Regulations for being ultra vires s.17A of the 1995 Act for failing to prescribe a description of each scheme in the Regulations. Merely naming the scheme was insufficient. The Secretary of State appeals this decision, and that Mr Wilson’s notice did not comply with Regulation 4, and the Respondents reserves the right to cross appeal on the need for published policy and breach of Article 4 plus an additional breach of ECHR Article 6 by the Secretary of State now fast-tracking a Bill (with retrospective effect) to unwind the Court of Appeal’s decision.
What level of detail is required by Regulation 2(4)(c) and (e) of the 2011 Regulations to be specified in notices provided to those required to participate in such schemes?
Subject Matter catchwords for indexing
Judicial Review – Secondary Legislation - Ultra Vires - Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 – Jobseekers Act 1995
