26 February 2021 by

R (The Motherhood Plan and Anor) v HM Treasury [2021] EWHC 309 (Admin) read judgment

In a judgment handed down on 17 February 2021, the Excessive Court docket has dominated that the Self Employment Earnings Help Scheme (“the Scheme”) launched through the coronavirus pandemic doesn’t not directly discriminate towards self-employed ladies who’ve taken a interval of go away referring to maternity or being pregnant within the final three tax years.


On 30 April 2020, HM Treasury (the Defendant) launched the Scheme as a way to present funds to those that carried on a enterprise which had been adversely affected by the coronavirus emergency. The Scheme was to be primarily based on common buying and selling earnings (“ATP”) of the person enterprise over the previous three full tax years (i.e. 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/2019).


The Claimants’ case was that the Scheme had a discriminatory affect on ladies who had taken maternity go away throughout a related tax yr. The rationale was that buying and selling earnings for the yr when maternity go away was taken would have been decrease, the end result being that the funds below the Scheme have been lower than they in any other case might need been.

The Claimants due to this fact challenged the Scheme on two fundamental grounds:

  1. The Scheme unlawfully discriminated towards self-employed ladies who’ve taken a interval of go away referring to maternity or being pregnant within the three previous tax years, opposite to Article 14 learn with Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Conference. This discrimination was superior as taking the type of: (i) “Typical” oblique discrimination; and/or (ii) discrimination of the Thlimmenos kind: the precept that totally different instances ought to correctly be handled otherwise.
  2. The Defendant breached the Public Sector Equality Responsibility in part 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Floor 1: Article 14

It was frequent floor that the method to oblique discrimination claims within the context of Article 14 was to be guided by R (Stoot) v Justice Secretary [2020] AC 51 (at [8]), which set out the 4 components which can be wanted to determine a violation of Article 14:

  1. The circumstances should fall inside the ambit of a Conference proper.
  2. The distinction in remedy will need to have been on the bottom of one of many traits listed in article 14 or “different standing”.
  3. The claimant and the one that has been handled otherwise should be in analogous conditions.
  4. Goal justification for the totally different remedy might be missing. It’s not all the time simple to maintain the third and the fourth components fully separate, and it isn’t unusual to see judgments focus upon the query of justification, fairly than upon whether or not the folks in query are in analogous conditions.

As to “standard” oblique discrimination, Whipple J held (by reference to R (Adiatu) v HM Treasury [2020] EWHC 1554 (Admin) at [149] and Barry v Midland Financial institution [1999] 1 WLR 1465) that the drawback was not brought on by the Scheme itself however fairly it was an obstacle which flowed from an absence of or discount in an individual’s earnings previously. Additional, the Scheme imposed no hidden boundaries to eligibility, and it was no more durable for a lady who had been on maternity go away to qualify or calculate their cost than somebody who had not. The explanations for decrease earnings in previous years, within the context of the Scheme, have been held to not be related.

In respect of Thlimmenos discrimination (that totally different instances want totally different remedy), Whipple J held that the distinctive circumstances for the Claimant and the group she represented existed previously. Due to this fact, the Claimants have been demanding redress via the Scheme in relation to a novel state of affairs previously and it was not accepted that failure to accord totally different remedy within the current amounted to illegal discrimination. Adiatu was once more raised to justify the purpose that the drawback was thought of to not have been brought on by the measure however to exist independently of it.


Whereas Whipple J was not persuaded that Article 14 had been breached, she nonetheless went on to think about the difficulty of justification. As as to if the Scheme was manifestly with out cheap basis (“MWRF”), it was agreed between the events that the suitable check was whether or not the muse superior by the HM Treasury was cheap (R (DA & others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] 1 WLR 3289 at [66]). The Defendant relied on 5 separate justifications: (i) goal, (ii) coverage supply, (iii) danger of fraud, (iv) perverse results, and (v) worth for cash.

First, the said goal of the Scheme was thought of cheap in that it supplied assist for self-employed folks whose companies have been adversely affected by the pandemic.

Secondly, as to coverage supply, it was accepted {that a} transfer away from a technique of calculation on earnings would have concerned expense and led to delay, which was at odds with the requirement for a fast supply; it was not unreasonable for HM Treasury to have adopted a easy and fast method.

Thirdly, the will for claims to be verifiable by reference to knowledge already held by HMRC, thus mitigating the chance of fraud, was a strong justification for the design of the Scheme and an comprehensible place to take.

Fourthly, it was not potential to search out an alternate resolution with out creating a spread of arduous instances and anomalies and this was a political determination for the architects of the Scheme – not for attorneys.

Lastly, sustaining the Scheme’s simplicity saved prices down and enabled swift funds to be made.

It was due to this fact held that, whether or not taken individually or together, HM Treasury’s selections have been cheap ones. The Scheme was a macro-economic coverage involving substantial public expenditure and the Authorities had a large margin of appreciation.

Floor 2: Public Sector Equality Responsibility

Part 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 units out {that a} public authority will need to have “due regard to” the necessity to get rid of discrimination and promote equality of alternative. The place was summarised in R (British Medical Affiliation) v Secretary of State for Well being and Social Care [2020] Pens LR 10, per Andrews LJ:

142. Elias LJ in R. (Hurley) v Secretary of State for Enterprise Innovation and Expertise [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin) at [78] elegantly summarised the method that the Court docket ought to absorb these phrases:

“the idea of ‘due regard’ requires the court docket to make sure that there was a correct and conscientious give attention to the statutory standards … the choice maker should be clear exactly what the equality implications are when he places them within the stability, and he should acknowledge the desirability of attaining them, however in the end it’s for him to determine what weight they need to be given within the mild of all related elements.”

That passage was expressly authorized in Bracking [2013] EWCA Civ 1345.

The Claimants argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dedicated himself to the ATP method at an early stage, earlier than there had been any consideration of the equality affect. Nevertheless, Whipple J held that the overall equality implications have been thought of by HM Treasury previous to the Chancellor exercising his powers below the Coronavirus Act 2020 to determine the Scheme. She was additional glad that the Chancellor had had the particular concern properly in focus and that the regard he needed to it was correct and conscientious.


The road of reasoning adopted from Adiatu that it isn’t the Scheme itself that’s discriminatory, however fairly an exterior issue, seems overly technical. The straightforward truth stays that the Scheme was designed in such a approach that perpetuates inequality. By analogy, it will be an odd state of affairs if an employer have been in a position to run a scheme of economic bonuses that was depending on uninterrupted years of service.

That mentioned, even when the court docket had held that Article 14 had been violated, it appears doubtless that it will have been justified. For instance, the Scheme was devised below monumental time strain, with the intention of getting funds out to the self-employed as quickly as potential, and there was an actual danger of fraud. It’s troublesome to see the justifications put ahead on behalf of HM Treasury not being held to be cheap.

As to the general public sector responsibility, this was primarily an evidential query, and it appears Whipple J was justified in reaching the conclusion she did on the proof earlier than her.

Henry Tufnell is a barrister at 1 Crown Workplace Row