The forthright judgment delivered by Mr Justice Collins in  EWHC 1446 is, perhaps, unusual; I have not seen one like it before. Justice Collins took the view that the application of rules intended to encourage people into work could not reasonably be applied to lone parents with children under the age of 2. References to work were “entirely irrelevant”. The system of Discretionary Housing Payments “simply is not working with any degree of fairness.” The idea that people could renegotiate their rent was ‘laughable’ and ‘unrealistic’. Describing the status of lone parents as a choice was ‘offensive’; one of the cases before him concerned rape in an abusive relationship. He concludes: “Real misery is being caused to no good purpose.”
Part of the judgment seems to run against the view of the Supreme Court, but Justice Collins took advantage of the Supreme Court’s haphazard presentation of their opinions on a previous case. I’ve previously commented on the Supreme Court’s ramshackle and muddled approach to legal commentary; if they can’t agree on what’s being said, they can’t expect people to follow their decisions.