The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Judicial responses to bright line rules in social security: in search of principle

Judicial responses to bright line rules in social security: in search of principle
Judicial responses to bright line rules in social security: in search of principle
This article considers judicial responses to the use of 'bright line' rules in social security law. It analyses, within the framework of judicial deference, the receptiveness of the judiciary to an argument by the executive that a rule is justified as being administratively convenient to operate. The article questions the proposition that the judiciary is at its most deferential when complex issues of socio-economic policy or resource allocation are raised in the context of social security law. A contrast is drawn between cases involving an issue of statutory interpretation and those applying a proportionality test. The article tests the presumption that a difference in approach should be discernable in these two situations. It concludes by criticising the courts for failing to articulate clearly the values at stake and by arguing for the need for greater transparency and a broader public debate concerning the use of bright line rules.
0026-7961
384-411
Laurie, Emma
c1dd220c-d784-4d82-a3ae-c6cdedd48a18
Laurie, Emma
c1dd220c-d784-4d82-a3ae-c6cdedd48a18

Laurie, Emma (2009) Judicial responses to bright line rules in social security: in search of principle. Modern Law Review, 72 (3), 384-411. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00748.x).

Record type: Article

Abstract

This article considers judicial responses to the use of 'bright line' rules in social security law. It analyses, within the framework of judicial deference, the receptiveness of the judiciary to an argument by the executive that a rule is justified as being administratively convenient to operate. The article questions the proposition that the judiciary is at its most deferential when complex issues of socio-economic policy or resource allocation are raised in the context of social security law. A contrast is drawn between cases involving an issue of statutory interpretation and those applying a proportionality test. The article tests the presumption that a difference in approach should be discernable in these two situations. It concludes by criticising the courts for failing to articulate clearly the values at stake and by arguing for the need for greater transparency and a broader public debate concerning the use of bright line rules.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: May 2009
Organisations: Law

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 147895
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/147895
ISSN: 0026-7961
PURE UUID: 9e092917-c268-4db0-a60b-7d345cc120cb
ORCID for Emma Laurie: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-2178-1593

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 27 Apr 2010 08:43
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 02:42

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×