Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(IS)6/06
File Number:	CIS 1965 2003
Appellant:	Francis v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge D. Williams
Date Of Decision:	17/08/2004
Date Added:	08/09/2004
Main Category:	Maternity benefits
Main Subcategory:	social fund maternity payment
Secondary Category:	Human rights law
Secondary Subcategory:	article 14 (non-discrimination)
Notes:	Human rights - Sure Start Maternity Grant - whether exclusion of person caring for child under residence order was discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention The claimant’s claim for a Sure Start Maternity Grant was refused solely on the ground that she was caring for the relevant child under a residence order. Under regulation 5 of the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987 she would have been entitled to the Grant if she had had an adoption order. An appeal tribunal upheld the decision. She appealed to the Social Security Commissioner. The Commissioner rejected arguments that the reference in regulation 5 to adoption should be given a broad meaning to include a person who has a residence order for the baby in question. It had further been argued that her claim to Maternity Grant fell within the ambit of Article 8 of, or Article 1 of Protocol 1 to, the European Convention on Human Rights and that to exclude her would amount to discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. That argument was also rejected. The Commissioner held that she had not assumed the full parental role and was not in an analogous position to a natural or adoptive parent. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State conceded, and the Court accepted, that the facts of the case came within the ambit of Article 8. The issue for the Court was whether there had been discrimination contrary to Article 14. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. whilst there were significant legal differences between an adoption order and a residence order, none of them had relevance to the purpose of a Maternity Grant, which was to ensure that children have a positive start in life by providing help to low income mothers with the costs associated with a new baby, and for those purposes the claimant was in an analogous or relevantly similar situation to an adoptive mother (paragraphs 17 to 19); 2. the status of persons with a residence order as compared with adoptive parents is a personal characteristic such as to count as a relevant ground for the purpose of Article 14, according to the test set out in R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2004] UKHL 39, [2004] 1 WLR 2196 (paragraphs 21 to 28); 3. administrative convenience cannot in itself be a sufficient justification for discrimination without some other justification as to why those in an analogous or relevantly similar situation are being excluded, and, in the absence of clear evidence that there would be seriously adverse consequences if those with residence orders were entitled to a Maternity Grant, there was no rational justification for the discrimination (paragraphs 29 to 30); 4. it followed that the exclusion of the claimant from entitlement to a Maternity Grant was discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention (paragraph 31).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(IS) 6 06 ws.doc