Category: Benefits

R(I) 2/97: SSCS 20 Mar 1996

Prescribed disease A10 (occupational deafness) – work in engine room on land – whether ‘work in ships’ engine rooms’

Citations:

[1996] UKSSCSC CI – 7176 – 1995

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268978

(Un-named) CDLA/419/1994: SSCS 20 Mar 1996

The court was asked whether the claimant was entitled to the mobility component of disability living allowance. She had been awarded the care component at the lowest rate, and seemingly entitlement to a higher rate was not in issue. In the event, the tribunal, upholding the decision of the adjudication officer, decided that the claimant was not entitled to the mobility component.

Citations:

[1996] UKSSCSC CDLA – 419 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268976

(Un-named) – R(U) 1/96: SSCS 25 Apr 1995

Voluntary unemployment – claimant giving notice of resignation but employer requiring her to leave immediately – whether claimant ‘voluntarily left … employment without just cause’
The claimant gave her employer four weeks notice on 9 December 1992. On 10 December 1992 the employer informed her that he wished her to leave the next day, 11 December 1992. The adjudication officer decided that the claimant was to be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for eight weeks on the ground that she had voluntary left her employment without just cause. The social security appeal tribunal upheld that decision. The claimant appealed to a social security Commissioner.
Held that:
when the claimant gave notice to leave she thereby terminated her employment and this amounted to a voluntary leaving by the claimant. This was not altered by her employer’s subsequent action, whether that was to be construed as not requiring her to work out her notice or as a counter-notice. However, the employer’s action was highly relevant in deciding the length of the disqualification in this case was one week.

Citations:

[1995] UKSSCSC CU – 151 – 1993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268928

(Un-named) (DB): SSCS 24 Apr 1995

Prescribed disease A10 (occupational deafness) – felling trees in forest area to clear way for roads – whether ‘forestry’ – The claimant claimed disablement benefit in respect of prescribed disease A10 (occupational deafness) on 24 April 1991. From 1978 to March 1991 he had worked for a road construction company. He was employed to clear forest areas, using a chain saw to fell the trees and cut them into logs. He contended that this occupation was prescribed in relation to occupational deafness because it involved ‘the use of chain saws in forestry’ (sub-paragraph (i) of A10). A tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal against the adjudication officer’s refusal of his claim. The adjudication officer appealed to a social security Commissioner.
Held that:
the claimant’s occupation did not fall within the meaning of ‘forestry’ in paragraph A10 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985. His work involved the destruction of forest areas, not the preservation of them. The fact that his work included the cutting down of trees did not mean that his occupation fell within the definition of ‘forestry’ (Meally v. McGowan 39 SLR 662 applied).

Citations:

[1995] UKSSCSC CI – 362 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268924

(Un-named) (DLA): SSCS 19 Apr 1995

Tribunal practice – appeal in respect of mobility component – whether tribunal obliged to consider existing entitlement to care component – disability living allowance

Citations:

[1995] UKSSCSC CSDLA – 180 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268927

(Un-named) – R(IS) 3/96: SSCS 25 Apr 1995

Capital – farm – whether farmland part of ‘premises’ occupied by the claimant’s husband
The claimant had lived on a farm of which she was the joint owner with her husband. On 2 July 1992 she went to live in a residential care home on a permanent basis. Her husband continued to live in the farmhouse. Income support was awarded from 2 July 1992. It was later established that the value of the farmland was about andpound;35,000. The land was farmed by a partnership of the claimant’s husband and son; it was accepted that the land, which had its own access, could be sold separately from the farmhouse. The adjudication officer reviewed the decision awarding income support, deciding that although the value of the farmhouse could be disregarded under paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 10 to the Income Support (General) Regulations, the value of the farmland could not. The claimant was therefore not entitled to income support because her capital exceeded the prescribed limit of andpound;8,000. The tribunal allowed the claimant’s appeal holding that the value of the claimant’s interest in the farm was nil as she would be unlikely to find a willing purchaser without her husband’s agreement to a sale. The adjudication officer appealed to the Commissioner.
Held that:
‘premises’ in paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the Income Support (General) Regulations was to be interpreted in line with the definition of ‘dwelling occupied as the home’ in regulation 2(1). The first four paragraphs of Schedule 10 were all concerned with disregarding the claimant’s home or what would be the home if the claimant was in actual occupation, and thus it was entirely consistent for ‘premises’ in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 to be given a similar interpretation. The tribunal had therefore not erred in law by failing to apply paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the whole of the farm;
However the tribunal had erred in law by not considering regulation 52 of the Income Support (General) Regulations. The effect of regulation 52 was to deem the claimant to have an equal undivided share as beneficial tenant in common of the farm (see Chief Adjudication Officer v. Palfrey and para. 49 of CIS/391/1992[R(IS) 26/95]);
although there were grounds for review of the decision to award income support because it was given in ignorance of the facts relating to the claimant’s beneficial interest in the farm, the adjudication officer had not shown that the decision to award the claimant income support should be revised (para. 29). The District Valuer’s valuation of the claimant’s interest seemed to have been based on the revenue approach which was inconsistent with the approach required by paragraphs 53 and 54 of CIS/391/1992 [R(IS) 26/95]. Moreover it was based on an assumption that an order for sale of the farm was likely to be granted but this seemed doubtful in the circumstances. Accordingly the adjudication officer had not shown that the claimant’s notional share of the farm had a market value which was sufficient to affect her entitlement to income support;
the claimant was therefore entitled to income support until her death on 2 February 1994

Citations:

[1995] UKSSCSC CIS – 767 – 1993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268925

Mote v Regina: CACD 21 Dec 2007

The defendant appealed his convictions for offences relating to the claiming of benefits, saying that he was immune from prosecution as a member of the European Parliament, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on other charges.
Held: There had been no abuse of process in prosecuting the defendant whilst he was a member of the European Parliament. The prosecution did not attack any of his privileges. The inconsistencies such as they were could be explained by factual differences between the counts and evidence supporting them. On one count, the appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ, Ouseley J, Blake J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 3131

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 15A 17(1)(a), Social Security Administration Act 1992 111A(1A), 1965 Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities 8 9 10, Indictments Act 1915 5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
Cited – Regina, ex parte International Air Transport Association, European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport ECJ 10-Jan-2006
ECJ Carriage by air – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5, 6 and 7 -Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Validity – . .
Cited – Regina v Mullen CACD 4-Feb-1999
British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to . .
See Also – Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 14-Dec-2007
The appellant was accused of having received income benefits to which he was not entitled. A prosecution was commenced and at the same time he appealed to the tribunal against the decision that there had been an overpayment. The authorities . .
Cited – Regina v Johal and Ram 1972
Ashworth J said: ‘The argument for the appellants appeared to involve the proposition that an indictment, in order to be defective, must be one which in law did not charge any offence at all and therefore is bad on the face of it. We do not take . .
Not approved – Cova Products Ltd, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The court considered the practice on an appeal alleging that the jury had returned inconsistent verdicts.
Held: The court approved a statement from Professor Smith: ‘a better view would be that the conviction is not safe unless the court is . .
Not Approved – Parry v Halton Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 20-Jun-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Benefits, European

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.262970

Kelly v The United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Apr 2008

Admissibility – The applicant’s wife died on 14 August 1992. They had no children from the marriage. On 29 May 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits. On 2 June 2000 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed. The applicant appealed on 13 June 2000. On 6 November 2000 the Tribunal confirmed that the decision remained unchanged. The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

69076/01, [2008] ECHR 443

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268077

(Un-named): SSCS 18 Dec 2007

The claimant has appealed to the Commissioner against the decision of the tribunal which disallowed the claimant’s appeal to them and confirmed the decision of the Secretary of State issued on 5 February 2007. That decision was that the claimant was not entitled to the social fund funeral payment because a contribution from the family was greater than the amount payable.
Held: No error of law had been shown.

Citations:

[2007] UKSSCSC CSIS – 534 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267888

(Un-named) (DLA): NISSCS 4 Jul 2005

Appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, affirming the decision of a decision maker, to the effect that the claimant is not entitled to any rate of the mobility or the care component of disability living allowance.

Citations:

[2005] NISSCSC C41 – 03 – 04(DLA)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Benefits

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.229888

Practice Statement (Judicial review: Asylum Support): Admn 13 Feb 2004

Where an asylum applicant sought to have reviewed a decision not to provide support by way of benefits, the respondent Secretary of State was to be given an automatic extension of the time limit for replying to the application. Interim relief could be granted to the applicant and so he would not generally be prejudiced by this arrangement.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-2004

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.194795

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Balding: CA 13 Dec 2007

The Secretary of State appealed a decision that its reclaim of overpayments of benefit were no longer possible after the discharge from insolvency of the claimant. The overpayment had been reclaimed before bankruptcy.
Held: At the time of the bankruptcy the debt was not a contingent debt. The secretary of state had demanded its repayment, and it whether it was contingent could not be dependent on which method of recovery was later chosen.

Judges:

Mummery, Thomas, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1327, [2008] 1 WLR 564, [2008] 3 All ER 217, [2007] BPIR 1669

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Steele, Regina (on the Application of) v Birmingham City Council and The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 16-Dec-2005
The claimant had received an overpayment of benefits (Job seeker’s allowance), but then was made bankrupt. He now said that this was a debt in the bankruptcy.
Held: It was not. At the date of the bankruptcy order, the possible reclaim was not . .

Cited by:

Approved – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne and Another SC 14-Dec-2011
The appellant sought to recover overpayments of benefits and Social Fund Loans, after the respondent had had a Debt relief order.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal failed. The ‘net entitlement principle’ argued for did not exist. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Insolvency

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262113

(Un-named) (DLA): SSCS 16 Oct 2007

The claimant seeks a ruling of principle that someone whose visual problems, particularly when associated with anxiety or depression, prevent them from walking outdoors without guidance or supervision from another person can be entitled to the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance (DLA) on those grounds.

Citations:

[2007] UKSSCSC CDLA – 3898 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262051

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Doyle: CA 27 Apr 2006

Appeal by the Secretary of State, to secure a ruling on the correct method of computing earnings when deciding entitlement to invalidity benefit.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller Sir Christopher Staughton Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 466

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996, Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.241314

Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern: ECJ 18 Jul 2007

Europa (Grand Chamber) (Free Movement Of Persons) Frontier worker Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Transfer of residence to another Member State Non-working spouse Child-raising allowance Not granted to spouse Social advantage Residence condition.

Judges:

V Skouris, P

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ C-212/05, [2008] All ER (EC) 1166, [2007] ECR I-6303, ECLI:EU:C:2007:437

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 28-Sep-2006
Opinion – Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community – Concept of worker – German official having transferred his permanent residence to Austria while . .

Cited by:

Cited – Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 16-Mar-2011
The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258594

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Morina and Another: CA 23 Jul 2007

The Secretary of State had won his case on the substance but wished to challenge parts of the judgement which dealt with jurisdictional points.
Held: The court could hear an appeal by a successful party where there were good reasons for deciding jurisdictional points which had arisen.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Arden LJ, Phillips MR

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 749, [2007] 1 WLR 3033

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lake v Lake CA 1955
Mrs Lake’s answer to an allegation of adultery had been one of denial or, in the alternative, condonation. Her husband’s petition was dismissed, the Commissioner finding that there had been adultery but that it had been condoned. She sought to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
The court was asked to accept an appeal against not the order made by the tribunal, but the terms of the reasoned judgment.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal had made findings which were unnecessary to its judgment, and which were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258301

Abdirahman v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 5 Jul 2007

The appellants were economically inactive EEA nationals who were lawfully present in the UK and who appealed against refusal of their claims for social security benefits under Articles 12 18.
Held: The appeal failed. For Art 12, the benefits including income support were ‘not within the scope of application of the Treaty’. As to Art 18, Lloyd LJ analysed the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice before concluding: ‘It seems to me, on the basis of those decisions, in particular that of Trojani’s case . . that Article 18 EC does not create a right of residence for an EU citizen in another Member State, in a case in which the limitations imposed under Council Directive 90/364/EEC are not satisfied, and that those limitations are proportionate to the legitimate objective in protecting the public finances of the host Member State.’

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt Ch, Lloyd LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 657, [2008] 1 WLR 254, [2007] 4 All ER 882

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 27-Nov-2008
The claimant entered the UK as a student coming from Poland. She then worked as a kitchen maid, but having left that job on becoming a mother was refused income support. She later returned to work. She said that the rules which denied her benefit . .
Cited – Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 16-Mar-2011
The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254459

RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 28 Jun 2007

Whether a person who is entitled to income support and who would otherwise be entitled to disability premium as part of his IS loses his entitlement to DP during any period in which he is ‘without accommodation’.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 614, [2007] 1 WLR 3067

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 13-Jul-2006
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253748

Hooper v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 24 May 2007

The claimant had been required to repay an overpayment of incapacity benefits having taken up part time work without notifying the respondent. He now said that a fact sheet issued by the respondent was insufficiently clear and unambigous as to allow a recoupment.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. The words ‘you should fill in the application form’ and ‘you should tell the office’ were not the language of clear and unambiguous mandatory requirement.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 495, Times 27-Jun-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994, Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1968) 32(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252525

Commission v Parliament and Council (Free Movement of Persons): ECJ 3 May 2007

ECJ Action for annulment – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 4(2a) and 10a – Annex IIa – Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 – Special non-contributory benefits

Citations:

[2007] EUECJ C-299/05, [2007] ECR I-8695

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 647/2005

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Applied – Molenaar v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Wurttemberg ECJ 5-Mar-1998
ECJ (Judgment) Freedom of movement for workers – Benefits designed to cover the risk of reliance on care . .
Applied – Jauch v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter ECJ 8-Mar-2001
ECJ (Judgment) Social security for migrant workers – Austrian scheme of insurance against the risk of reliance on care – Classification of benefits and lawfulness of the residence condition from the point of view . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked whether the United Kingdom is precluded, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251894