## Facts

- The case concerned the lawfulness of the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) back-to-work programmes, specifically regarding Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) and the imposition of mandatory work requirements.
- The claimant, Mr. Reilly, challenged the legal authority of the Secretary of State to establish such requirements, arguing they were not clearly authorised by the Jobseekers Act 1995.
- The DWP asserted that it possessed broad regulatory powers under the Act to create these programmes without further parliamentary approval.
- The parties contested whether the Secretary of State could lawfully require unpaid work for benefit eligibility without explicit statutory provision.
- The Court of Appeal considered the clarity and lawfulness of the DWP's regulations and their conformity with principles of fairness.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary of State had legal authority under the Jobseekers Act 1995 to impose mandatory work activities as a condition for receiving Jobseeker's Allowance without explicit parliamentary approval.
2. Whether the rules and regulations governing the back-to-work programmes provided sufficient clarity regarding participants’ obligations.
3. Whether such regulations met standards of fairness and the principle of legality in public law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mr. Reilly, holding that the Secretary of State lacked authority to impose mandatory work activities absent explicit parliamentary endorsement.
- The court determined that substantial conditions affecting benefits must be established through clear primary legislation, not solely through secondary regulations.
- The decision underscored that rules impacting entitlement to benefits require a clear and lawful basis communicated with precision.

## Legal Principles

- Significant conditions on welfare benefits, especially those impacting income, must derive from explicit parliamentary approval.
- The principle of legality requires that individuals be clearly informed of the legal grounds affecting their rights or obligations.
- Administrative measures must comply with fairness and reasonableness standards, especially when imposing mandatory requirements.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that major welfare eligibility conditions require unmistakable parliamentary authorization, limiting executive discretion and upholding statutory clarity and procedural fairness in benefit schemes.

R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWCA Civ 413