R (Carmichael and Rourke) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2016] UKSC 58
Ratio Decidendi
The 'bedroom tax' (removal of the spare room subsidy in housing benefit) is unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 8 where it fails to make allowance for a claimant's disability-related need for an additional bedroom.
Fakty
Ms Carmichael, a severely disabled woman, required an additional bedroom due to her medical equipment, including a dialysis machine. Mr Rourke's severely disabled grandson required a separate bedroom for overnight care. Both had their housing benefit reduced under the under-occupancy rules. They argued the rules discriminated against them on grounds of disability.
Podsumowanie orzeczenia
The Supreme Court held (by a 5–2 majority) that the housing benefit regulations were unlawful in their failure to provide for disability-related needs for an additional bedroom. The regulations constituted unjustified discrimination under Article 14 ECHR in the cases of both appellants. The court made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of the regulations.
Kluczowe cytaty
"Where, as here, the need for an extra bedroom arises from a disability, a rule that takes no account of that need results in discrimination that requires justification."
— Lord Toulson
"The fact that discretionary housing payments are available does not cure the discrimination inherent in the scheme itself."
— Lord Toulson
Późniejsze zastosowanie
Led to amendments in the Housing Benefit Regulations to provide for disability-related bedroom needs.
Applied in subsequent challenges to welfare benefits that fail to accommodate disability-related requirements.