R (on the application of MA & ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWHC 2213 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 373 (Jul)
The implementation of a policy which placed a cap on amounts payable by way of housing benefit by reducing the eligible rent for the purpose of the calculation in cases where the number of bedrooms in the property let exceeded the number permitted had not been discriminatory towards the claimants, each of whom was either disabled or living with a disabled person, and had not been manifestly without reasonable foundation. In reaching that decision, the Divisional Court held that where discrimination was direct (where a rule, practice or policy prescribed different treatment for persons in like situations) it was the rule itself that had to be justified: the difference in treatment. Where the discrimination was indirect (where a single rule had disparate impact on one group as opposed to another) it was the disparate impact that had to be justified. With Thlimmenos discrimination (see Thlimmenos v Greece (Application 34369/97) ([2000] EHCR 34369/97)), what had to be justified was the failure
