R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016]...

Facts

• The case concerned the lawfulness of the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) back-to-work programmes, specifically regarding Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) and the imposition of mandatory work requirements.
• The claimant, Mr. Reilly, challenged the legal authority of the Secretary of State to establish such requirements, arguing they were not clearly authorised by the Jobseekers Act 1995.
• The DWP asserted that it possessed broad regulatory powers under the Act to create these programmes without further parliamentary approval.
• The parties contested whether the Secretary of State could lawfully require unpaid work for benefit eligibility without explicit statutory provision.
• The Court of Appeal considered the clarity and lawfulness of the DWP's regulations and their conformity with principles of fairness.

Issues

1. Whether the Secretary of State had legal authority under the Jobseekers Act 1995 to impose mandatory work activities as a condition for receiving Jobseeker's Allowance without explicit parliamentary approval.
2. Whether the rules and regulations governing the back-to-work programmes provided sufficient clarity regarding participants’ obligations.
3. Whether such regulations met standards of fairness and the principle of legality in public law.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mr. Reilly, holding that the Secretary of State lacked authority to impose mandatory work activities absent explicit parliamentary endorsement.
• The court determined that substantial conditions affecting benefits must be established through clear primary legislation, not solely through secondary regulations.
• The decision underscored that rules impacting entitlement to benefits require a clear and lawful basis communicated with precision.

Legal Principles

• Significant conditions on welfare benefits, especially those impacting income, must derive from explicit parliamentary approval.
• The principle of legality requires that individuals be clearly informed of the legal grounds affecting their rights or obligations.
• Administrative measures must comply with fairness and reasonableness standards, especially when imposing mandatory requirements.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that major welfare eligibility conditions require unmistakable parliamentary authorization, limiting executive discretion and upholding statutory clarity and procedural fairness in benefit schemes.