Facts: SG and NS were single mothers with young children. They submitted that the ‘benefits cap’ was unlawful in that it discriminated against women in breach of Article 14 and Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR.

Judgment: the Supreme Court (Hale, Kerr, Reed, Carnwath and Hughes JJSC) held that (Hale and Kerr JJSC dissenting) held that it was legitimate to treat women less favourably in order to reduce public expenditure, incentivise work and impose a reasonable limit on benefits. Further, and by a rather complex process of reasoning, the duty to treat the best interests of children as a primary consideration, founded on Article 3 UNCRC but present also in the ECHR, did not bite.