Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2015] UKSC 47
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
"The state's aim, however legitimate, of making savings to the public purse cannot in itself amount to justification for the discriminatory effect of a measure on a severely disabled child."
— Lord Wilson
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.