R (Reilly) v Sec. of State, [2016] EWCA Civ 413

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Jennifer, a single mother receiving jobseeker’s assistance, was recently instructed by her local job centre to attend a two-week unpaid training program. She was told that failure to participate would result in suspension of her benefit payments. The underlying statute authorizing jobseeker’s assistance does not expressly mention any compulsory training. The department contends it has wide regulatory powers allowing it to create such obligations. Jennifer believes these new requirements were not explicitly approved by Parliament and may exceed the department’s authority.


Which statement best reflects how the law addresses major changes in mandatory benefit conditions?

Introduction

R (Reilly (No. 2)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWCA Civ 413 concerns the lawfulness of the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) back-to-work programs, particularly the Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) rules and their application. This case addresses statutory clarity and fairness in mandatory work requirements. The central question is whether the Secretary of State had legal authority to create such requirements without direct parliamentary approval, and whether the rules clearly stated participants’ duties. The Court of Appeal's decision clarifies the limits of government power and stresses the need for precise legal rules in welfare benefits.

The Challenge to the Regulations

The claimant, Mr. Reilly, argued that the rules for the back-to-work program were ultra vires (outside the powers) given to the Secretary of State under the Jobseekers Act 1995. The original law established a framework for JSA but did not explicitly allow compulsory work activities. The DWP argued its broad regulatory power under the Act permitted these programs. This section summarizes the arguments from both sides, focusing on interpretations of the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the scope of the Secretary of State’s authority.

Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Intent

The Court of Appeal closely reviewed the Jobseekers Act 1995 and relevant parliamentary debates. The judges assessed whether the Act explicitly or implicitly permitted requiring unpaid work for JSA eligibility. This part explains the court’s method for interpreting the law, including textual analysis and legislative intent. It also discusses how parliamentary records aided in understanding the Act’s goals.

Fairness and the Principle of Legality

A key issue was the principle of legality and fair treatment in government actions. Mr. Reilly argued that the back-to-work program had no valid legal basis and unclear rules, rendering it unlawful. This section discusses fairness in public law, including the right to know the legal basis for decisions affecting individuals. It examines how courts evaluate the reasonableness of administrative measures.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mr. Reilly, finding the Secretary of State lacked authority to impose mandatory work activities without explicit parliamentary approval. The court stated that significant conditions affecting income must derive from clear laws passed by Parliament, not secondary regulations. This part outlines the court’s legal analysis and the decision’s practical implications for the DWP and other government bodies.

Effects on Welfare Policy

The ruling in R (Reilly (No. 2)) has major implications for how welfare programs are designed and administered. It strengthens parliamentary oversight and the requirement for clear legal authority when setting benefit conditions. This section discusses the decision’s impact on later welfare policies and debates about balancing employment goals with individual rights. It also contrasts this case with prior rulings on work-related benefit schemes.

Conclusion

R (Reilly (No. 2)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWCA Civ 413 is a significant administrative law case that defines executive power limits and stresses statutory clarity and fairness. The Court of Appeal’s decision confirms that major changes to welfare rules need explicit parliamentary approval, protecting individual rights and lawful governance. This principle ensures the executive branch operates within legal boundaries set by lawmakers. The case shows how courts uphold accountability and prevent arbitrary use of power in welfare systems. It provides a basis for challenging overreaching regulations and guides future disputes about government authority in social security.

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.

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 December 2024. 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.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

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