Landmark PIP legal challenge success shows effective use of collaborative public law approach

Wed,24 April 2019
News Benefits

The Public Law Project’s (PLP) effective collaborative approach to public law has featured in a case study of a landmark PIP legal challenge.

In March 2017, new PIP regulations prevented an award of the enhanced PIP mobility rate in cases where someone cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person unless it is “for reasons other than psychological distress”.

This meant that those with serious mental health conditions, who are unable to plan or undertake a journey because of overwhelming psychological distress were only entitled to a lower level of support, if any.

However, in its December 2017 judgment in RF v the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the High Court ruled that March 2017 egulations were unlawful because they “blatantly discriminate” against people with disabilities in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The High Court also found that the Secretary of State did not have lawful power to make the regulations and should have consulted before making them.

RF was legally represented by the PLP, and her claim was supported through witness statements by the National Autistic Society, Inclusion London, Revolving Doors and Disability Rights UK.

Mind and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) intervened in the case as third-parties supporting RF’s claim.

The new research identifies strategic lessons for third sector organisations that use public law to challenge unfair systems and highlights the ‘pivotal role’ PLP played in coordinating with a wide network of individuals and organisations.

“Using the law to address unfair systems” is based on interviews with some of those most involved in the legal challenge and gives first-hand insights into how NGOs, funders and litigators won the judicial review brought by PLP’s client, RF.

The report also looks at the post-litigation ‘legacy’ phase and raises important questions such as how the Government can be held to account to implement such rulings, and who has responsibility for communicating subsequent policy changes to those affected.

The PIP case study report is available here.

See also DR UK welcomes Govt decision not to appeal PIP psychological distress judgement.