- 6 updates
The Supreme Court has upheld a 2011 decision by the Court of Appeal that unemployed people were not given enough information, especially about the sanctions for refusing jobs under the schemes.
The judgement said that the two claimants "should have [been given] sufficient information about the scheme to be able to make freely informed representations".
Work Secretary Iain Duncan Smith claimed a victory in the Supreme Court today despite it ruling that the 'back-to-work' schemes are legally flawed. He said:
The Government's 'back-to-work' schemes at the centre of the high-profile Poundland case were legally flawed, the UK's highest court ruled today.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith failed in a Supreme Court bid to overturn an earlier ruling that 2011 regulations underpinning the schemes were invalid.
Five Supreme Court justices upheld a Court of Appeal decision which went against the Government in February.
The Government has lost a Supreme Court appeal over a ruling that its flagship "back-to-work" schemes are legally flawed.
The Court of Appeal ruled that regulations underpinning the Government's "back-to-work" schemes were legally flawed.
Judges Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burnton unanimously agreed in a judgment in February this year that the 2011 "work for your benefits" regulations failed to give the unemployed enough information, especially about the sanctions for refusing jobs under the schemes.
The ruling was a victory for university graduate Cait Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, who challenged having to work for free at a local Poundland discount store.
It was also a victory for 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, who objected to doing unpaid work cleaning furniture and as a result was stripped of his jobseeker's allowance for six months.
The UK's Supreme Court is set to rule today on the legality of the Government's "back-to-work" schemes at the centre of the high-profile Poundland case.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is attempting to overturn a Court of Appeal ruling that regulations underpinning the schemes were legally flawed.
The schemes were condemned by critics as ''slave labour'' because they involved work without pay and cuts in jobseeker's allowance for those who failed to comply with the rules.
University graduate Cait Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, and 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, had both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed.