Category: Benefits

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M: CA 15 Oct 2004

M had challenged the Child Support Regulations saying that they discriminated against her. She was the liable parent, and in a monogomoud lesbian relationship. As such she said that she was treated worse than she would have been since the Regulations did not that her relationship as constituting a family. The Secretary of State appealed against the finding that the regulations were discriminatory. The second claimant had challenged a similar result in her claim for Housing Benefits.
Held: The court upheld the Commissioner’s decision.
Lord Justice Sedley considered that the applicant’s previous family life (i.e. the relationship between herself, her former husband and her children) was not within the ambit of Article 8. As for her relationship with her partner, he read the ECHR decision in Estevez to establish that the question whether same-sex relationships fall within Article 8 is a matter of domestic law. Several domestic precedents treated same-sex couples as no different from heterosexual couples in certain contexts, and the applicant’s relationship constituted family life for the purposes of the case. Any discrimination against the applicant on the grounds of her sexual orientation called for compelling and proportionate justification. The child support scheme impinged in some significant degree on the family life of the applicant and her partner, bringing their situation within the ambit of Article 8. As the scheme discriminated against the applicant on grounds of her sexual orientation, Article 14 was also engaged. He rejected the argument that the scheme came within the ambit of the applicant’s private life, since the scheme did not set out to recognise the applicant’s sexual orientation. Regarding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he considered it unnecessary to decide if it too was engaged, although he doubted that it was. He found that the Government had not provided any acceptable justification for the discrimination against the applicant. He rejected the arguments advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State about the difficulty of correcting a problem that was but one instance of a distinction applied throughout the wider social security system, observing that there was no doctrine of justification by the logistics of reform. As for a remedy, he considered that the appropriate course was to disapply (in effect delete) the definition in the regulations of an unmarried couple so as to eliminate the requirement of heterosexuality.

Judges:

Kennedy, Sedley, Neuberger LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1343, [2005] 2 WLR 740, [2006] QB 380

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991, Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 1(2), Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – (Un-named) SSCS 1-Oct-2003
The mother had challenged payments required of her by way of child support. The Secretary of State now appealed.
Held: The appeal was rejected: ‘a gay relationship can be a family for the purpose of [A]rticle 8’. There was no reason, in the . .
Cited – Mata Estevez v Spain ECHR 10-May-2001
The claimant complained that the state did not give proper recognition of his relationship with his deceased same sex partner.
Held: The court noted the growing tendency in a number of European states towards the legal and judicial recognition . .

Cited by:

At CA – JM v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Nov-2008
. .
At CA – JM v United Kingdom ECHR 28-Sep-2010
The applicant alleged that she had been the victim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the assessment by the authorities of her financial liability under the regulations on child support. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216576

Elmbridge Borough Council v Sullivan: CA 30 Jun 2005

The council sought to recover alleged overpayment of housing benefit. It claimed that it had served appropriate notice on the defendant. He denied receiving any notice.
Held: The defendant had later received a copy of the notice, but had still not sought to exercise his rights of appeal. The defendant had taken the matter to the ECHR, where it awaited determination, and the matter had been stayed. In reality the compaint was against the decision notice, and the complaint did raise significant questions. Permission to appeal granted.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1097

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.229859

G C Noij v Staatssecretaris Van Financien: ECJ 21 Feb 1991

ECJ Social security for migrant workers – Applicable legislation – Pensioners – Applicability of the legislation of the State of residence notwithstanding payment of the pension by another Member State – Whether permissible – Charging by the State of residence of contributions to cover benefits payable by the Member State paying the pension – Not permissible – Previous pursuit of a professional or trade activity in the State of residence – No effect

Citations:

R-140/88, [1991] EUECJ R-140/88

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215799

Sylvie Lair v Universitat Hannover: ECJ 21 Jun 1988

European law draws a distinction between member state nationals who have not yet entered into an employment relationship in the host member state where they are looking for work and those who are already working in that state or who, having worked there but no longer being in an employment relationship, are nevertheless considered to be workers.
‘the rights guaranteed to migrant workers do not necessarily depend on the actual or continuing existence of an employment relationship’.

Judges:

Lord Mackenzie Stuart, P

Citations:

C-39/86, R-39/86, [1988] EUECJ R-39/86, [1988] ECR 3161

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community

Cited by:

Cited – Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 4-Apr-2006
The claimant had dual Irish and US nationality. He therefore also was a citizen of the EU. He complained that the British rules against payment of job seekers’ allowance were discriminatory. The matter had already been to the ECJ.
Held: The . .
Cited – Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant had come from France to England, and worked as a teaching assistant. She set out on a course to train as a teacher but became pregnant, gave up the course, and eventually gave up work temporarily. Her claim to Income Support was refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215610

Saada Zaoui v Caisse Regionale D’Assurance Maladie De L’Ile-De-France (Cramif): ECJ 17 Dec 1987

ECJ Social Security For Migrant Workers – 1. Regulation no 1408/71 does not exclude from its scope ratione materiae a supplementary allowance paid by a national solidarity fund and granted to recipients of old-age, survivors’ or invalidity pensions with a view to providing them with a minimum means of subsistence, provided that the persons concerned have a legally protected right to the grant of such an allowance.
2. Members of the family of a worker can only claim derived rights under regulation no 1408/71, that is to say the rights acquired through their status as members of the worker’ s family. It follows that a member of the family of a worker who is a national of a member state cannot rely on regulation no 1408/71 in order to claim a supplementary allowance connected with a pension which he receives in that member state in a capacity other than that of a member of a worker’s family.
. The community rules on freedom of movement for workers do not apply to cases which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by community law. Such is the case with workers who have never exercised the right to freedom of movement within the community. Accordingly, a member of the family of a worker who is a national of a member state cannot rely on regulation no 1612/68 in order to claim the same social advantages as workers who are nationals of that state when the worker of whose family he is a member has never exercised the right to freedom of movement within the community.

Citations:

C-147/87, R-147/87, [1987] EUECJ R-147/87

Links:

Bailii

Benefits, European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215549

Vera Hoeckx v Openbaar Centrum Voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn, Kalmthout: ECJ 27 Mar 1985

Minimum means of subsistence – Concept of social advantage or benefit. General social benefits of a kind not listed in article 4(1) were held not to constitute a social security benefit within the meaning of Regulation 1408/71

Citations:

R-249/83, [1985] EUECJ R-249/83, [1987] 3 CMLR 638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

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: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215308

Salvatore Cinciuolo v Union Nationale Des Federations Mutualistes Neutres And Institut National D’Assurance Maladie-Invalidite: ECJ 1 Mar 1984

ECJ Social security for migrant workers – old-age and survivors’ insurance – benefits – adjustment – recalculation – scope of the system
(Regulation no 1408/71 of the council, art. 51)
Article 51 of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as applying to benefits such as those in respect of accidents at work or occupational disease which, by virtue of the national rules against overlapping of benefits, originally affected the amount of the pension fixed pursuant to article 46 and any subsequent adjustments to which might again affect that pension. It is therefore not necessary to recalculate the pension pursuant to article 46 if an adjustment is made to such a benefit on account of the general evolution of the economic and social situation.

Citations:

R-104/83, [1984] EUECJ R-104/83

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215229

Nv Tiel-Utrecht Schadeverzekering v Gemeenschappelijk Motorwaarborgfonds: ECJ 15 Mar 1984

1. Social security for migrant workers – rights of institutions responsible for benefits against liable third parties – institution – meaning – (regulation no 1408/71 of the council, art. 1(n) and art. 93)
2. Social security for migrant workers – community regulations – matters covered – ‘industrial agreements’ – exclusion (regulation no 1408/71 of the council, art. 1(j))

1. The term ‘institution’ in article 93 of regulation no 1408/71 means, in respect of each member state, the body or authority responsible for administering all or part of the member state’s legislation relating to the branches or schemes of social security mentioned in that regulation.
2. Regulation no 1408/71 does not apply to ‘industrial agreements’ (dispositions conventionnelles). Therefore the relationship existing between an insured person and an insurance company under insurance having a purely contractual basis does not, by reason of its nature, fall within the scope of regulation no 1408/71.

Citations:

R-313/82, [1984] EUECJ R-313/82

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215228

Raad Van Arbeid v Mme Van Der Bunt Craig: ECJ 5 May 1983

ECJ Irrespective of the characteristics peculiar to the various national laws, social security benefits must be considered to be of the same kind when their purpose and basis of calculation are the same. In that respect, benefits acquired under the legislation of two member states, which seeks to ensure that an aged person deprived of the income of his or her deceased spouse has sufficient means of subsistence, and the respective amounts of which are determined on the basis of the insurance and social security contributions of that spouse, must be considered to be benefits of the same kind by reason of their identical purpose and basis of calculation.
When a worker receives a pension pursuant to national legislation alone, the provisions of regulation no 1408/71 do not prevent that legislation from being applied to him in its entirety, including the national rules against overlapping benefits. If, however, the application of that national legislation is less favourable to the worker than the application of article 46 of regulation no 1408/71, the provisions of that article must be applied. On the latter supposition, paragraph (3) of article 46 is applicable to the exclusion of rules against overlapping laid down by national legislation.
Where benefits of the same kind are granted or awarded in different member states on the basis of analogous national rules, without any reference to the provisions of regulation no 1408/71, there are no grounds for applying the method of currency conversion set out in article 107 of regulation no 574/72.
No provision of community law requires the periodical recalculation, by reason of a variation in the rates of conversion of currencies, of a social security benefit whose amount has been established in another member state.

Citations:

R-238/81, [1983] EUECJ R-238/81

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215161

Bestuur Van Het Algemeen Ziekenfonds Drenthe-Platteland v Pierik: ECJ 31 May 1979

Benefits in kind for pensioners. The Court was asked whether a person receiving an invalidity pension in the Netherlands was entitled to reclaim the cost of medical treatment in Germany.
Held: The status of ‘worker’ for the purpose of article 22 was not restricted to active as opposed to inactive workers. Such pensioners came within the provisions of the Regulation concerning ‘workers’, including article 22, by virtue of their insurance under a social security scheme, ‘unless they are subject to special provisions laid down regarding them’

Citations:

[1979] ECR 1977, [1979] EUECJ R-182/78

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Bestuur van Het Algemeen Ziekenfonds Drenthe-Platteland v G Pierik ECJ 16-Mar-1978
Medical treatment. . .

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: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214824

Bestuur van Het Algemeen Ziekenfonds Drenthe-Platteland v G Pierik: ECJ 16 Mar 1978

Medical treatment.

Citations:

R-117/77, [1978] EUECJ R-117/77

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Bestuur Van Het Algemeen Ziekenfonds Drenthe-Platteland v Pierik ECJ 31-May-1979
Benefits in kind for pensioners. The Court was asked whether a person receiving an invalidity pension in the Netherlands was entitled to reclaim the cost of medical treatment in Germany.
Held: The status of ‘worker’ for the purpose of article . .
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: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214726

Rita Frilli v Belgian State: ECJ 22 Jun 1972

Preliminary Questions – Guaranteed income for old people.

Citations:

R-1/72, [1972] EUECJ R-1/72, [1973] CMLR 386, [1972] ECR 457

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

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: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214168

Heinrich Gross v Caisse Regionale D’Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries De Strasbourg: ECJ 10 Nov 1971

ECJ Social Security For Migrant Workers – 1. Where the legislation of a member state provides for old-age benefits of different kinds, depending on the length of time for which the worker concerned has been affiliated, insurance periods completed successively or alternately in two or more member states must be aggregated wherever the worker has not completed the number of periods necessary under the legislation of the first state to entitle him to benefit of the more advantageous kind.
2. Where aggregation is necessary, for the purpose of calculating the fraction of the benefit to be borne by the relevant institution account must be taken of the periods in fact completed by the worker concerned, and not merely those representing the total required in the state in question for entitlement to full benefit.

Citations:

R-26/71, [1971] EUECJ R-26/71

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214149

Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS): ECJ 7 Sep 2004

EAT Freedom of movement of persons – Citizenship of the European Union – Right of residence – Directive 90/364/EEC – Limitations and conditions – Person working in a hostel in return for benefits in kind – Entitlement to social assistance benefits.
Advocate General Geelhoed said: ‘So long as social security systems have not been harmonised in terms of the level of benefits, there remains a risk of social tourism, ie moving to a Member State with a more congenial social security environment.’ and ‘The basic principle of Community law is that persons who depend on social assistance will be taken care of in their own Member State.’

Citations:

C-456/02, [2004] EUECJ C-456/02, [2004] All ER (EC) 1065, [2004] ECR I-7573, [2005] CEC 139, [2004] 3 CMLR 38, [2004] All ER 1065, ECLI:EU:C:2004:488

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Zalewska v Department for Social Development HL 12-Nov-2008
(Northern Ireland) The claimant challenged the rules restricting payment of benefits to nationals from the 8 latest European Accession states to those with an unbroken 12 month working record. The applicant came from Poland and worked at two . .
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

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214252

Hohn v Caisse Regionale D’Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries De Strasbourg: ECJ 10 Nov 1971

1. Where the legislation of a member state provides for old-age benefits of different kinds, depending on the length of time for which the worker concerned has been affiliated, insurance periods completed successively or alternatively in two or more member states must be aggregated wherever the worker has not completed the number of periods necessary under the legislation of the first state to entitle him to benefit of the more advantageous kind.
2. Where aggregation is necessary, for the purpose of calculating the fraction of the benefit to be borne by the relevant institution, account must be taken of the periods in fact completed by the worker concerned, and not merely those representing the total required in the state in question for entitlement to full benefit.

Citations:

R-28/71, [1971] EUECJ R-28/71

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214148

Kurt Colditz v Caisse D’Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries De Paris: ECJ 5 Jul 1967

EC Free movement of persons – migrant workers – insurance – system provided for by regulation no 3 – retention of separate national systems and of separate claims. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – insurance – implementation of community rules – respect for the rights to which recipients are entitled under national legislation. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – simultaneous payment of pensions not obligatory (regulation no 3, article 28).
Free Movement of Persons

Citations:

C-9/67, R-9/67, [1967] EUECJ R-9/67

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214052

Puglia v C James and Sons: EAT 24 Oct 1995

The EAT considered the effect of the receipt of benefits during a period of sickness when calculating loss of earnings, and whether a hearing was properly conducted without the presence of the parties.
Held: There is no procedural irregularity in the Tribunal members holding a meeting in the absence of the parties for the purposes of reaching their decision on evidence and argument already before them.
As to the affect of the receipt of statutory sick pay: ‘In our judgment, the industrial tribunal correctly applied the law in deducting from the estimated loss of earnings the statutory sick pay received by Mr Puglia over the relevant period. The law on this topic was settled by the Appeal Tribunal in Sun and Sand Ltd v Fitzjohn [1979] IRLR 154 . . It was not suggested in this case that Mr Puglia’s contract of employment provided that he would be entitled to his full wages in addition to any statutory sick pay which he received. The industrial tribunal were therefore correct in making a deduction for the statutory sick pay received by Mr Puglia.’

Judges:

Mummery J

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 777 – 93 – 2410, [1996] ICR 301, [1996] IRLR 70

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – C James and Sons v Puglia EAT 15-Jan-1992
The claimant had been made redundant after many years. He had worked for a farming partnership, and there had been recent changes in the partnership constitution. . .
Cited – Sun and Sand Ltd v Fitzjohn 1979
The EAT considered the deduction of sickness benefit from the compensatory award. Arnold J said: ‘The appellants before us say that that amount of sick ness benefit should be deducted from the amount awarded within the compensatory award for the 13 . .
Cited – Hilton International Hotels (UK) Ltd v Faraji EAT 10-Jan-1994
No reduction in compensation for unfair dismissal was to be made for invalidity benefit. . .
Cited – SH Muffett Ltd v Head EAT 1986
The Tribunal was asked to award damages for the loss of statutory protection and also loss of notice period, ‘what is generally referred to as the ‘loss of the right to long notice’ or, more particularly, it is the loss of a right in the event of . .

Cited by:

See Also – C James and Sons v Puglia CA 19-Feb-1997
. .
Cited – Langley and Another v Burso EAT 3-Mar-2006
The claimant had been dismissed shortly after becoming unable to work. She sought payment of her normal salary during the period of notice saying this was established good practice.
Held: ‘We are put in the invidious position of being bound by . .
Cited – Knapton and others v ECC Card Clothing Ltd EAT 7-Mar-2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Compensation
Reversing the Employment Tribunal, in the assessment of compensation for unfair dismissal under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 123, an employee who took early receipt . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Benefits

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.209414

NN, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 17 Apr 2019

The Claimants are both victims of modern slavery/people trafficking who challenge aspects of the Defendant’s policy towards people such as themselves who have been accepted as victims (as they have) by the Defendant following a Conclusive Grounds determination under the National Referral Mechanism. One of the policies challenged by the Claimants as unlawful is the Defendant’s policy of ending support including additional financial payments, accommodation and support worker assistance 45 days after the CG determination has been given. In response, the Defendant relies on the fact that victims can ask for an extension of support pursuant to an unpublished policy. There are amended grounds of challenge to include a challenge to the legality of that extension policy.

Judges:

Justice Julian Knowles

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1003 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.636096

Deakin v Secretary of State for Defence: CA 4 Apr 2019

The court was asked whether the respondent was entitled to a restored war widow’s pension from the date when she first notified her application for such a pension or from the date when, as is agreed, she actually became entitled to such a pension?

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 571

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Armed Forces, Benefits

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.635643

Spink and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Wandsworth: Admn 15 Jul 2004

Application for leave to present petition for judicial review – granted

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2168 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Full Application – Spink, Regina (on the Application Of) v Wandsworth Borough Council Admn 20-Oct-2004
Parents requested the local authority to make provision for their severely disabled children. The local authority wished when deciding whether to provide adaptations of the house to make allowance for the parents’ financial resources.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Application for leave – Spink, Regina (on the Application Of) v Wandsworth Borough Council Admn 20-Oct-2004
Parents requested the local authority to make provision for their severely disabled children. The local authority wished when deciding whether to provide adaptations of the house to make allowance for the parents’ financial resources.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Benefits

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.219285

Roberts v Secretary of State for Social Security: CA 10 May 2001

Renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision allowing the Secretary of State’s appeal from the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal and directing that the weekly rates of widows’ pensions payable to the claimant should be subject to a weekly reduction of seven per cent pursuant to section 39(4) of the 1992 Act,

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 910

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 39(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.201080

Cotton v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions: CA 14 Dec 2009

The court considered whether accrued holiday pay paid on the termination of an employment was ‘earnings of the same kind’ as the claimants wages for the purposes of a claim for carer’s allowance.

Judges:

Laws, Wilson, Goldring JLJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1333, [2010] AACR 17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.384060

(Un-named) (DLA): SSCS 16 Oct 2002

Disability Living Allowance

Citations:

[2002] UKSSCSC CDLA – 1338 – 2001

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.197619

Bland v Chief Supplementary Benefit Officer: SSCS 1 Dec 1982

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a ruling of the Social Security Commissioner. The tibunal was asked if the Court of Appeal any jurisdiction to give leave to appeal from the refusal of a Social Security Commissioner to give leave to appeal to her from a decision of the supplementary benefit appeal tribunal?
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘I would accept that in a sense the grant or refusal of leave to appeal to the Commissioner is a decision, just as in Ex parte Stevenson [1982] 1 QB, 609 it was accepted that the grant or refusal of leave to appeal was an order of the High Court, but it is not the kind of decision which, in my judgment, s.14 contemplate.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1982] UKSSCSC RSB – 12 – 1983, [1983] 1 WLR 262

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Act 1980 14

Citing:

Cited – In re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bland v Chief Supplementary Benefit Officer CA 1983
(Orse R(SB) 12/83)) The commissioner refused had leave to appeal against a decision of the Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunal.
Held: No appeal lay to it against a decision of a Commissioner refusing leave to appeal from a decision of an . .
Cited – Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
Cited – Huggett v Secretary of State for the Environment Etc; Wendy Fair Markets Ltd v Same; Bello v Etc CA 1-Mar-1995
There is no power for Court of Appeal itself to give leave to appeal after High Court’s refusal of leave on an enforcement notice. The court rejected the applicant’s submission that a High Court judge’s decision refusing permission to appeal under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.197416

(Un-named): SSCS 6 Apr 2004

The claimant’s payments of ‘ground rent’ are periodical payments in respect of which housing benefit is payable in the form of a rent allowance.

Citations:

[2004] UKSSCSC CH – 3110 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197161

(Un-named): SSCS 2 Apr 2004

The decision of the tribunal on 2 9 03 was not erroneous in law for limiting itself to the period from 26 3 03 to 19 5 03. A fresh claim had been made on 20 5 03, apparently awarding higher rate mobility component from 20 5 03 to 19 5 05, but no rate of care component.

Citations:

[2004] UKSSCSC CDLA – 114 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197157

(Un-named) (State Pension): SSCS 24 Feb 2003

The tribunal considered entitlement of the claimant to a guaranteed minimum pension in respect of his occupational pension, and an appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State about the amount of state retirement pension to which the claimant was entitled.

Citations:

[2003] UKSSCSC CP – 4479 – 2000(2)

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197224

(Un-named) CSDLA/854/03: SSCS 23 Mar 2004

The claimant appealed against the tribunal’s decision that the claimant did not satisfy the conditions for the cooked main meal condition set out in section 72(1)(a)(ii) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.

Citations:

[2004] UKSSCSC CSDLA – 854 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 72(1)(a)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197155