R (JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKS...

Facts

• JS, a disabled individual, received housing benefit which was reduced due to the presence of non-dependent adults in his home under regulations known as the “spare room subsidy.”
• JS argued that the regulations disproportionately impacted disabled individuals who require larger accommodations, constituting discrimination under Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• The legal challenge focused on whether the housing benefit reduction was justified and proportionate in light of its significant effect on the rights of disabled persons.

Issues

1. Whether the social security regulations reducing JS’s housing benefit pursued a legitimate aim.
2. Whether the measures adopted to achieve that aim were proportionate, given their impact on disabled individuals under Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR.
3. Whether cost-saving considerations could justify measures that had disproportionate effects on vulnerable populations.

Decision

• The Supreme Court recognized the government’s aim of reducing expenditure and promoting efficient use of social housing as legitimate.
• Applying a four-stage proportionality test, the Court found the impact on disabled individuals requiring larger or modified accommodation was not justified by the expected savings.
• The Court held that the regulations, as applied to JS, were disproportionate and thus incompatible with the requirements of the ECHR.
• The decision established that while financial objectives are relevant in policymaking, they do not automatically override the rights of vulnerable groups.

Legal Principles

• Proportionality in administrative law requires that measures interfering with fundamental rights must:
  • Pursue a sufficiently important objective.
  • Be rationally connected to that objective.
  • Be the least restrictive means available.
  • Strike a fair balance between individual rights and community interests.
• The test for proportionality applied by the Court was articulated in four stages and drawn from European and domestic precedents, notably Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39.
• Cost considerations alone cannot justify measures that unduly burden vulnerable individuals or produce unjustified discrimination.

Conclusion

The judgment in R (JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16 significantly advanced UK administrative law, confirming that social security measures must be assessed through a rigorous, structured proportionality analysis, with special regard for the rights and needs of vulnerable groups such as disabled persons.