JUDGMENT SUMMARIES
Summaries of opinions (judgments) provide a short explanation of judicial decisions in order to assist understanding and may be published in cases where there is wider public interest. They provide the main findings, but do not form part of the reasons for the decision.
The judgment published on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals website is the only authoritative document.
Petition of Peter and Florence Fanning for judicial review
Jun 13, 2025
The petitioners, Peter and Florence Fanning, lost their entitlement to the financial assistance and became worried about their ability to afford their heating costs.
They sought a judicial review of both decisions; however, Lady Hood refused the petition on all grounds.
In her judgment, Lady Hood stated: “This case is not a verdict, nor even an expression of opinion, on the merits or demerits of government policy as debated in the public arena. Instead, the current proceedings were brought by the petitioners to test a much narrower question: namely, whether the policy decisions of each of the respondents (and the legislation which brought those policies into effect) are unlawful, and so liable to be struck down by the courts.”
Background
The Winter Fuel Payment is an annual lump sum paid to those who have attained qualifying age and meet other requirements.
It was introduced by the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2000.
In April 2024, the provision of a winter fuel related payment was devolved to the Scottish Ministers who proposed a new benefit – the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment (PAWHP). This meant an adjustment to the block grant funding provided to the Scottish Government by the UK Government.
The Scottish Ministers proposed that this new payment be a universal, non-means tested one.
Following the UK General Election in July 2024, it was announced that the WFP would no longer be available to those not in receipt of Pension Credit or other means-tested benefits.
This resulted in a reduction to the block grant provided to the Scottish Ministers, estimated to be around £160m. The Scottish Ministers considered that they had no option but to replicate the decision of the first respondent with regards to the PAWHP.
The petitioners, who received WFP in 2023 but were not eligible for PAWHP in 2024, challenged both decisions in this case.
Orders sought by the petitioners
The petitioners sought:
- A finding that the Secretary of State failed to exercise her duties under the Equality Act 2010 before the WFP policy decision, and (separately) failed to consult with persons of pensionable age at common law;
- a finding that the Scottish Ministers failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010 before the PAWHP policy decision, and (separately) failed to consult with persons of pensionable age at common law;
- a finding that both respondents’ decisions were irrational and unreasonable;
- a finding that both respondents’ decisions were unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998;
- reduction (quashing) of the Secretary of State’s policy decision; and
- reduction (quashing) of the Scottish Ministers’ policy decision.
Decision
In her decision, Lady Hood found that neither of the respondents had failed to exercise their duties under the Equality Act 2010. Her Ladyship also held that neither respondent was under a duty to consult.
Her Ladyship also held that the decisions were neither irrational nor unreasonable and did not breach the Human Rights Act 1998.
The petition was refused on all grounds.
Lady Hood’s judgment concluded: “I shall therefore repel the petitioners’ first to eighth pleas‑in‑law, and refuse the petition. The question of the appropriate remedies, had I found in the petitioners’ favour therefore does not arise. I shall reserve all questions of expenses.”
The full opinion, published on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website, is the only authoritative document.