[2025] UKUT 035 (AAC)

the point made in TP2 at [48-52] applies with equal force in the present case. The claim in this case is not directed to any general proposition that Article 14 requires transitional protection to be paid at any specific level; nor does it concern the general arrangements for transitional provision. Rather it is directed only to one narrow matter, namely the justification of the difference in treatment between members of two groups, those in MJ’s position and those in (as I have found) analogous positions. As Ms Smyth put it, the Secretary of State’s reliance on the no turning back principle in TP2 is no different from the reliance on regulation 29(4) of the 2013 Regulations in this case. The existence of regulation 29(4) (like the no turning back principle in TP2) does not of itself explain or provide a reason for the distinction between the transitional protection applied to the two groups or why one should face a cliff-edge in terms of loss of benefits when the needs of the claimant actually increase