Thread by @glynbmil

Day 2 #BackTo60
1. Eadie - DWP had a legitimate aim to equalise SPA so there was justification for doing so.
There may be an analysis of Indirect discrimination

2. Eadie says that increase was staggered. Talks about Intention of parliament to increase SPA which was discussed in 1991

3. Eadie - In 2011, statistics showed increase in life expectancy (does concede it has recently flattened)

4. Eadie - Govt had to consider intergenerational fairness ... younger working people funding pension

5. Master of the Rolls - you've lost me on the point of indirect/direct discrimination.

6. Eadie - I flagged up protected characteristics and indirect discrimination.
Lady Rose - there is a discriminatory impact?

7. Master of the Rolls - The comparator of the claimaint cohort is the difficulty in the case.
Eadie - Indirect discrimination excluded by Social Security directive Article 7 1 A

8. Underhill (who I think is on our side ladies) asks ... the news of women in the group could amount to indirect discrimination?
Eadie - no indirect under ECHR as SPA equalisation is a legitimate aim

*needs

Eadie - social ills not caused by SPA increase. Men disadvantaged anyway as shorter life expectancy (women on average live 2 years longer than men)
SP not means tested, not designed to alleviate poverty. Pension credit is for that.

That was point 9

10. Lady Rose questioning why DWP witness doesn't say about women being disadvantaged in the work place.
Eadie doesn't really answer that ..

Eadie refers to case law to rebut claimaints contention of DWP making decisions without reasonable foundation.

That was number 11 sorry

12. Discussions about case law ... going over my head a bit to be honest.

13. Eadie says he's finished with justification and suggests a short break till 12md. Master of the Rolls agrees. Eadie says his submission on notice and delay will take him to 1pm. Master of the Rolls says we will break for lunch then.

14. Back now

15. Eadie - Equalisation in the modern world is the norm and the inequality between the sexes was not demonstrated in the way the claimaint asserts

16. Eadie that's the justification points made. Makes reference to CEDAW - Strasbourg jurisprudence usually through HRA.

17. Eadie turn now to notification.
No duty on Sec of State to notify of changes in primary legislation
Underhill could SoS be under a duty to notify of the EFFECTS.
Eadie govt did not put that in legislation.

18. Master of Rolls any examples where govt have notified.
None that Eadie knows of.

19. Eadie says as in criminal cases ignorance of law no excuse.
Lady Rose pulls him up ... no in this case we have a class of people readily identifiable that's not the case with criminals. You don't know who they are until they commit the criminal activity

20. Eadie seems to be getting a bit irritated. Talking about common law principles ... legitimate expectation. Case cant make out a case to impose that on govt.

21. Eadie no one has a vested right to consideration of the law as it stood in the past.

22. That's notification. Now on to undue delay. Question of when person first affected. In this case is either when Act came in or at the date when equalisation came in.
Underhill - that is illogical.May 2010 would not apply to those affected later.

23. EADIE - you're wrong May 2010 is when taper begins, but there has to be an alternative submission. Underhill - so when you get to 60
Master of Rolls - when did Appellants have standing for Judicial Review.

24. Master of the Rolls the test is when did they become affected.
Eadie says the legislation is there it could have been raised earlier.
[I'm sat here screaming they weren't bloody notified!]

25. Discussion about delay - Master of the Rolls talks about continued wrongdoing as asserted by Mansfield.
Eadie - delay relevant to 2 things - permission promptness and relief.

26. Master of the Rolls suprised that divisional court did not deal with delay. Underhill to Eadie didnt you mention delay then

27. Lady Rose there is a continuing failure point
Underhill series of unlawful acts which may have started with secondary legislation

28. Eadie says Delve knew of the impact of increase in SPA in 2010/11 and Glynn in 2015
Master of Rolls asks Mansfield to speak about Article 7. Mansfield asks for 5 mins to confer.
Short break.

29. This is a long 5 minutes ...

Henrietta Hill has said that Mansfield is having technical difficulties with the link. Master of the Rolls says no problem, e mail my clerk when you're ready

30. And we are back. Hill is going to respond to the discrimination points ...

31. Suspect grounds - looks at the history. Personal characteristics, things a person cant change. The issue of sex for example.

32.Discussion around manifestly unreasonable.
Underhill - special weight applies to direct & indirect. You can't justify direct discrimination, suspect grounds could give rise to indirect discrimination.

33. Hill looking at legislative SPA changes. 2011 changes were applicable to men and women, series of changes. Cumulative changes. 2011 change is gender neutral so fits the criteria for the comparator cohort. Lady Rose says bit late in the day to day this

34. Lady Rose asking who is the comparator group for the purposes of the disadvantage. Hill says groups made by the legislative changes.

35. Master of the Rolls says he is confused why Hill talking about age/sex combined discrimination. Hill says reiterating it as lower court did not address it fully.

36. Looks like Mansfield is back ...
Wants to deal with ground 4 (delay) first ... timeliness/promptness. Implementation of changes can cause continuing discrimination and thus claimaints not time barred.

37. MANSFIELD - where statute sets up a regime that does not take effect for 15 years. Unusual situation. Related to them but did not yet apply. Sufficient notice needed; so that when impact happens is the important date.

38. MANSFIELD - Ground 3 (notice) Eadie was wrong to compare with criminals. Not relevant. DWPs view is that no legal right to notify people individually or generally. Mansfield say because of the adverse effect due to SPA there is a requirement @ common law

39. MANSFIELD 50s born women were the bridge head, bore the brunt and so for that reason should have been given sufficient notice

MANSFIELD what difference would sufficient notice have done - centres on planning. Reads out from Julie Delves statement ...
Effect on mental health... in Glynns statement: if I had known I would have not have taken voluntary exit.

Have to shoot off now. Take care all x x

@threadreaderapp unroll please

*say

@threadreaderapp unroll please