R (JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal