Introduction

The case of MOC v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions ([2022] WLR(D) 16) presents a pivotal examination of the intersection between social security regulations and human rights law within the context of disability benefits. The primary focus is on the so-called "Hospitalisation Rule," a regulation that suspends Disability Living Allowance (DLA) payments after 28 days of hospitalization for individuals over 18. This suspension was challenged by MOC, a severely disabled individual, on grounds of indirect discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1).

MOC, represented by his sister MG, who acts as his deputy, contended that the Hospitalisation Rule unlawfully discriminated against him based on his disability and status as an incapacitated person requiring long-term hospital care. The case traversed through the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) before reaching the Court of Appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of both the FTT and the UT, dismissing MOC's appeals. The core issue revolved around whether the Hospitalisation Rule constituted indirect discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR. The court examined the necessity and justification of the rule, ultimately finding that it served a legitimate aim of preventing duplication of public funding and was proportionate in achieving this aim.

The judgment meticulously analyzed the concept of "status" under Article 14, determining that MOC's status as a severely disabled individual with a court-appointed deputy did not constitute a protected status warranting indirect discrimination claims. Furthermore, the court scrutinized the evidence regarding the impact of the rule on individuals like MOC and concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate a disproportionate effect that would render the rule discriminatory.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents to frame its analysis:

• Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 47: Addressed entitlement to benefits for individuals under 18 and influenced the amendment of regulations pertaining to the Hospitalisation Rule.
• Humphreys v HMRC [2012] UKSC 18: Established the "manifestly without reasonable foundation" test for assessing the reasonableness of welfare benefit regulations.
• Thlimmenos v Greece (2001) 31 EHRR 15: Introduced the principle that like cases should be treated alike, and unlike cases should not be treated in the same way, which was pertinent in assessing comparators.
• Carson v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR 13: Clarified the approach to be adopted in Article 14 cases regarding relevant status and differences in treatment.
• R (AB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] UKSC 28: Discussed the non-incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into domestic law, emphasizing its limited direct applicability.

These precedents were instrumental in shaping the court's approach to both the identification of relevant status for discrimination and the assessment of justification for differential treatment.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was multifaceted:

• Determination of Relevant Status: The court concluded that MOC's status as a severely disabled individual with a deputy did not constitute a protected class under Article 14. The focus was on whether there was a unique characteristic that afforded a group protection, which was not established in this case.
• Indirect Discrimination Assessment: The appellant needed to demonstrate that the Hospitalisation Rule disproportionately affected a specific group based on a protected characteristic. The court found insufficient evidence to establish that the rule had a disproportionate impact on individuals like MOC.
• Justification of the Rule: Even if indirect discrimination were established, the court would need to assess whether the Hospitalisation Rule pursued a legitimate aim and whether the means of achieving that aim were proportionate. The court found that preventing duplication of public funding was a legitimate aim and that the rule was a proportionate means to achieve this.
• Role of Deputies: The court distinguished between the roles of deputies acting on behalf of individuals lacking capacity and the responsibilities imposed by the Hospitalisation Rule, determining that the rule did not impose undue burdens on deputies.

Impact

The judgment reaffirms the government's discretion in structuring social security benefits to ensure efficient use of public funds. It underscores the judiciary's deference to legislative and administrative expertise in matters involving complex benefit regulations. Additionally, it clarifies the boundaries of protected status under Article 14, particularly in the context of disabilities and capacity.

Future cases involving indirect discrimination claims against social security regulations will reference this judgment to understand the necessary thresholds for establishing discrimination and the extent to which the courts will uphold governmental regulations aimed at preventing public fund duplication.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Hospitalisation Rule

The Hospitalisation Rule is a regulation that suspends DLA payments after an individual over 18 has been hospitalized for more than 28 days. The rationale is to prevent overlapping public funding for care needs that the NHS is already addressing during hospitalization.

Indirect Discrimination (Article 14)

Indirect discrimination occurs when a neutral policy disproportionately affects a particular group with a protected characteristic. In this case, the claim was that the Hospitalisation Rule indirectly discriminated against severely disabled individuals by suspending their benefits during extended hospital stays.

Relevant Status

"Relevant status" refers to a characteristic that qualifies a group for protection against discrimination under Article 14. The court concluded that MOC's status as a disabled individual with a deputy did not constitute such a protected status.

Justification and Proportionality

Justification assesses whether a discriminatory measure pursues a legitimate aim and whether the means of achieving that aim are proportionate. The court found that preventing duplication of public funding was a legitimate aim and that suspending DLA payments after 28 days was a proportionate measure.

Manifestly Without Reasonable Foundation Test

This test evaluates whether a policy or regulation lacks a reasonable basis. The court applied this test to determine if the Hospitalisation Rule was unfounded, ultimately finding it justified.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in MOC v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions solidifies the legality of the Hospitalisation Rule within DLA regulations, affirming the government's authority to structure benefit payments in a manner that avoids redundant public funding. The judgment delineates the limits of indirect discrimination claims in the context of social security benefits, emphasizing the necessity for substantial evidence demonstrating a disproportionate impact on a protected group.

This case serves as a crucial reference for future litigants and legal practitioners navigating the complexities of disability benefits and human rights law. It underscores the importance of clearly establishing relevant status and providing robust evidence when alleging indirect discrimination. Moreover, it highlights the judiciary's role in upholding legislative frameworks designed to ensure the efficient and fair distribution of public resources.