Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2015] UKSC 47
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
Suspending disability living allowance for a severely disabled child during an extended NHS hospital stay constitutes unjustified discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 of Protocol 1, where the child's disability-related needs continue during hospitalisation.
Facts
Cameron Mathieson, a severely disabled child, had his disability living allowance suspended after 84 days in hospital. The suspension applied automatically under regulations regardless of individual circumstances. Cameron's parents challenged the suspension, arguing that his disability-related needs (including specialist equipment, extra bedding, and transport for family visits) continued during his hospital stay.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the suspension of DLA discriminated against Cameron as a severely disabled child. The automatic suspension rule failed to take account of the continuing extra costs incurred by severely disabled children in hospital and was not justified. The court made a declaration of incompatibility.
Key Quotes
"A conclusion, reached without reference to international conventions, that the Secretary of State has failed to establish justification for the difference in his treatment of those severely disabled children who are required to remain in hospital for a lengthy period would harmonise with a conclusion that his different treatment of them violates their rights under two international conventions."
— Lord Wilson at [44](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Led to the Cameron Fund being established and amendments to the rules on suspension of disability benefits for children in hospital.
Cited in subsequent challenges regarding the interaction between welfare benefits and hospital stays.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help