Single mothers have lost their Supreme Court challenge against the Government 's £350-a-week benefit cap . Britain 's highest court narrowly ruled by three judges to two that the benefit cap restricting welfare to the equivalent of a £35,000 a year salary was not unlawful . Two women forced into temporary accommodation after suffering domestic violence said the cap violated their human rights . Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith , pictured in Downing Street this morning , welcomed the Supreme Court ruling . They claimed the cap disproportionately hit women , especially those trying to escape violent partners . But the Supreme Court said the cap , introduce by the Coalition government to clamp down on spiralling welfare bills , was legally okay . The benefit cap limits the amount of benefits a household can receive to £500 a week for couples and £350 a week for households of a single adult . Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said : ' I am delighted that the country 's highest court has agreed with this Government and overwhelming public opinion that the benefit cap is right and fair . ' He added : ' I am proud to say that it is one of the most significant reforms we 've implemented over the past five years . ' A key part of the long-term economic plan , the benefit cap is encouraging people to change their behaviour and motivating them to find work . ' The two lone parents went to the Supreme Court , along with a representative child from each family . Their lawyers argued that the cap unjustifiably discriminated against abuse victims , who are predominantly women , and failed to have regard to the best interests of the child . Lady Hale - one of the dissenting judges - ruled that the Government had failed to take proper account of 'the best interests of the children ' , as it was obliged to do under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child . They said the cap substantially reduces weekly income and puts the mothers at risk of losing their safe homes . The justices hearing the case included Supreme Court deputy president Lady Hale , Lord Kerr , Lord Reed , Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes . Lord Reed , giving the lead judgment , said he accepted that the cap was ' a proportionate means ' of meeting legitimate Government aims , which include deficit reduction and incentivising parents to find work . He noted that the cap for households with children was equivalent to a gross annual salary of £35,000 , which is higher than the earnings of half of the UK 's working households . Although the short-term savings were a small proportion of the total welfare budget , they nevertheless contributed towards deficit reduction , and were also intended to change behaviour over the longer term . But Lady Hale - one of the dissenting judges - ruled that the Government had failed to take proper account of 'the best interests of the children ' , as it was obliged to do under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child . Lady Hale said UNCRC was relevant even though it was not yet generally part of domestic law . She ruled that the cap deprived some children of provision for their basic needs , which could not be in their best interests . The cap 's aim of incentivising parents to seek work discriminated against lone parents as they were the least able to do so , said Lady Hale .
Britain 's top court narrowly ruled that the Benefit Cap was not unlawful . Two women forced out of home by domestic violence said challenged cap . The government has promised to scrap it, but so far no one is sure how they will do this.