Just a quick post to note that a Judicial Review of the bedroom tax regulations was apparently issued on Friday 1 March 2013. From this report, it appears that the grounds are along the lines of Burnip, as I suggested here, in that the basis is discrimination against children not able to share a bedroom through disability, with the addition of arguing that some are unable to share a bedroom 'because they are at risk of violence from a sibling, or because of the trauma they have experienced as a result of abuse and domestic violence'.
The cases are apparently being run by Rebekkah Carrier of Hopkin Murray Berskine. Any more information gratefully received and of course we will be watching what happens very closely.[Update. I have heard more. There are 10 Judicial review claims, all of which have an urgent directions hearing on 5 March 2013 (today for those reading the email). 5 of the claims are the HMB children cases mentioned above. There are 3 cases run by Public Law Solicitors in Birmingham which involve disabled adults, and two cases run by Leigh Day, also involving disabled adults. Some of the cases fall under Burnip. Others don't.
The Claimants are seeking an urgent rolled up permission and substantive hearing.
Martin Westgate QC, Kate Markus, Caoilfhionn Gallagher and Ben Chataway are counsel for the Claimants.
The results of this could well go beyond the bedroom tax to LHA regs on bedroom need as well.] [update 5 March. The Guardian has a piece with details of some of the claimants here. Also I have been told that the children's cases are on grounds of Art 8 and UNCRC as well as Art 14/Equality/Burnip grounds.] [Update 2: 5 March - the Admin Court has given the DWP 14 days to file grounds of resistance and will then take a view on the continuation of the claims. If they do go to hearing, this will be after 1 April 2013, so the introduction of the regs will go ahead unless the DWP decides otherwise. Mitting J reported as not being initially impressed with the 'there is DHP for that' argument from the DWP, saying "It is deeply unsatisfactory to set out a set of very clear rules and then say in individual cases you may have to depart from them." ]