This article discusses recent UK case law on equal treatment and social security with particular reference on objective justification in two important recent decisions: the Supreme Court decision in Humphreys and the Court of Appeal’s judgement in Burnip. There has been a marked and progressive improvement in the analysis of equal treatment issues under the ECHR by the UK courts. Decisions of European Court have helped to clarify that Article 14 is not narrowly confined to the grounds set out in Article 14 and that a broader range of statuses are also covered. The more flexible approach to comparators has also been recognised by the UK courts. Finally, both the European and national courts appear to have accepted that statistical evidence is not necessarily required in order to support a claim of disparate impact, thereby facilitating claims involving indirect discrimination. All of this has helped to focus the attention of the courts on the key issues of establishing whether discrimination has occurred and, if so, whether it is objectively justified, as in the cases considered here.