R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

This civil action involved two litigants - Annette Carson and Joanne Reynolds, which was on appeal from the Supreme Court and was a UK labour law and Human Rights Act 1998 case on "Right to property" under Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property)[3] and Article 14 of the convention (Prohibition of Discrimination.

Carson contended that she was being discriminated against with regard to deprivation of the annual inflationary increase to her UK State Pension because she had relocated to South Africa[5] para 9.

[1] para 6 Carson complained that she was being unfairly treated, since she had paid the same National Insurance] Contributions as a United Kingdom resident and therefore she should receive the same pension.

Lord Hoffman stated that it was unnecessary for the UK Government to try to justify the sums paid since it distracted attention from the main argument.

[1] para 34 In Lord Rodger's opinion, the fact that Carson gets less by way of pension does not constitute unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14.

[7] Whilst it had been made clear in the Supreme Court that as far as UK law is concerned the difference in the way different cohorts of pensioners are treated is in accordance with the law, Carson and her fellow "frozen" pensioners can only hope that their appeals to logic and a sense of fair play will eventually prevail, contrary to their experience to date.

[1] para 96 Lord Carswell stated that other judgments had missed the fact that Carson's financial position cannot be directly compared with those of pensioners either in the United Kingdom or in other countries, since exchange rates, inflation rates and the cost of living vary between these countries, therefore her case could not be directly compared with theirs and that accordingly she had not been discriminated against.

[1] para 98 If the UK Government had submitted reasons of economic or state policy to justify the difference in treatment, then Lord Carswell would yield to its decision-making power in those fields.

[1] para 104 Lord Hoffman stated that the key issue was whether the UK government had the right to deal with Job Seekers who were under 25 in a different way to those who were over the age of 25.

[1] paras 36 & 3' Reynolds contended that Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support should be viewed in the same way, since both of them were determined on need, and were not related to lost earnings.

[1] para 38 The UK government confirmed that initially, the Job Seekers Allowance did have the householder/non-householder split, but this had been substituted with an age qualification instead.

[1] para 41 In Lord Rodger's opinion, Reynolds felt that she was discriminated against on the grounds of age, but that the UK government treated the under 25 cohort of Job Seekers Allowance recipients as being in a different class since they will be receiving less, and therefore will have lower costs, and that by paying a lower amount, the UK government was encouraging them to live with others, rather than on their own, in which case there are many costs that could be shared,[1] para 45 and therefore there was no unlawful discrimination under Article 14.

[1] para8 81-84 He then reviewed these circumstances against case law as it pertained to Reynolds and he then set out the five reasons that the UK government believed that there was no such age discrimination[1] para 86 - People in the 18-24 age group earn less than those 25 and over; the majority of the "under 25's" do not live on their own, so their cost base is lower; the payment of lower amounts to the "under 25's" discourages them from living independently; there are other social welfare benefits that can be given to those who can prove financial hardship and, the UK government needs simple rules for good administration - the age distinction was easier to apply than those between householder and non-householder.