Category: Benefits

S, Regina (On the Application of) v Coventry City Council: Admn 13 May 2009

Application for permission to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the defendant refusing to provide the claimant with welfare assistance and care; failing to conduct an assessment of his needs; and issuing him with a notice to quit his occupation of his accommodation.
Beatson J
[2009] EWHC 2191 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.374374

Hill v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Aug 2020

High Income Child Benefit Charge – Taxpayer With Liability Did Not Complete Tax Return – Discovery assessments under s29(1)(a) TMA 1970 – ‘income’ assessable to income tax? – purposive construction applied to statute – reasonable excuse found exonerating taxpayer’s delay – appeal against penalties allowed
[2020] UKFTT 316 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.653157

Gusa v Minister for Social Protection (Special Non-Contributory Cash Benefits – Jobseekera?S Allowance : Opinion): ECJ 20 Dec 2017

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2004/38/EC – Person no longer working in a self-employed capacity – Retention of the status of self-employed person – Right of residence – Legislation of a Member State restricting eligibility for a jobseeker’s allowance to persons who have a right of residence on the territory of that Member State
[2017] EUECJ C-442/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:1004, [2018] PTSR 1699, [2018] WLR(D) 10
Bailii, WLRD
European
Citing:
Opinion – Gusa v Minister for Social Protection (Special Non-Contributory Cash Benefits – Jobseekera?S Allowance : Opinion) ECJ 26-Jul-2017
Opinion – reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Special non-contributory cash benefits – Jobseeker’s allowance – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 7(3)(b) – EU citizen who has lived and worked as a self-employed person in a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.668602

Szoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions: HL 28 Jul 2005

The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these were refused under regulations made under the 1999 Act. The regulations had disentitled to benefit those who required leave to remain in the UK but did not have it. The claimant said that at the time he was here with an immigration officer’s written authority.
Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed. Musisi’s case in Bugdaycay was the correct result, but the reason Musisi failed was because he was not a refugee within the Convention. It could not be argued that something more was required than the immigration officer’s written authority.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said: ‘The term ‘refugee’ in article 32(1) of the Refugee Convention can only mean someone already determined to have satisfied the article 1 definition of that term (as for example in article 23 although in contrast to its meaning in article 33). Were it otherwise there would be no question of removing asylum seekers to safe third countries and a number of international treaties, such as the two Dublin Conventions (for determining the EU state responsible for examining applications lodged in one member state) would be unworkable.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2005] UKHL 64, Times 01-Nov-2005, [2006] 1 AC 564, [2006] 1 All ER 1, [2006] INLR 88, [2005] 3 WLR 955, [2006] Imm AR 48
Bailii, House of Lords
Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000, Immigration Act 1971, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Szoma v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 30-Jul-2003
The applicant, a foreign national had been given temporary admission to the UK. He received income support. But this ceased after his asylum application was rejected, and he remained resident.
Held: The legislation now made specific reference . .
Cited – Murat Kaya v Haringey London Borough Council and Another CA 14-Jun-2001
The grant of temporary admission to the UK pending an decision on his asylum status, did not create a full ‘lawful presence’ in the UK. A person seeking to qualify for housing assistance had to be lawfully present within the UK, and temporary . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Singh QBD 8-Jun-1987
The Refugee Convention had ‘indirectly’ been incorporated under English law. The court considered whether a person allowed entry by an immigration officer was lawfully here irrespective of other considerations. As to the case of Musis in the . .
Cited – Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Kaya Admn 21-May-1998
. .
Cited – Taikato v Regina 16-Oct-1996
(High Court of Australia) The court was asked whether an individual carrying a formaldehyde spray possessed it ‘for a lawful purpose’.
Held: She did not do so even though it was a purpose not prohibited by law, namely self defence: ”Lawful . .

Cited by:
Cited – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Cited – YA, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Health CA 30-Mar-2009
The applicant was a failed asylum seeker who sought judicial review of a decision of an NHS Trust not to provide him with free care. The court was asked for guidance as to whether a health trust had a discretion to provide free health care to a . .
Applied – Tesfamichael v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 19-Dec-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to return her to Eritea despite a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that she should be given leave to remain as a refugee.
Held: The application succeeded, and ordered the . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.231608

Salvato, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 13 Oct 2021

Appeal by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (‘the Secretary of State’) against the decision of Chamberlain J that the requirement imposed by the UC Regulations on a person claiming the childcare costs element (‘CCE’) of UC to have already paid for the relevant childcare (i) subjected the claimant and single mothers like her, to unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 14 read with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, (‘A1P1’) and (ii) was irrational.
Lady Justice Andrews
[2021] EWCA Civ 1482
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.668575

MP v Sutton London Borough Council (HB): UTAA 30 Jul 2021

Liability created to take advantage of the housing benefit scheme – tenant’s entitlement to housing benefit the same as it was before the liability was created – regulation 9(1)(l) of the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006 – whether necessary that the creation of the liability be capable of leading to an advantage.
[2021] UKUT (AAC) 193
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.667699

SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (JSA): UTAA 19 Jul 2021

Department for Work and Pensions purported to stop unemployment credits, mistakenly treating them as a type of jobseeker’s allowance. Department for Work and Pensions treated unemployment credits under 8A Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975 as if they were Jobseeker’s Allowance and mistakenly applied the Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 to stop unemployment credits when the claimant refused to provide identification and was deemed to have failed to attend an interview. The erroneous treatment of unemployment credits as a type of jobseeker’s allowance (referred to as ‘Jobseeker’s Allowance (Credits only)’) was followed by the First-tier Tribunal. Observation made that the procedure and paperwork adopted by Department for Work and Pensions when dealing with unemployment credits may benefit from revision to ensure that this error is not repeated.
[2021] UKUT 179 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 September 2021; Ref: scu.667701

Huijbrechts v Commissie voor de behandeling van administratieve geschillen ingevolge artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in de provincie Noord-Brabant: ECJ 13 Mar 1997

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Raad van State – Netherlands. Social security – Wholly unemployed frontier worker – Unemployment benefits in the competent Member State – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
C-131/95, [1997] EUECJ C-131/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:147
Bailii
European

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.161574

Insalaca: ECJ 7 Mar 2002

ECJ Social security – Articles 46 to 46c of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – National rules against overlapping – Benefits of the same kind.
C-107/00, [2002] EUECJ C-107/00
Bailii
European

Updated: 18 September 2021; Ref: scu.168137

Regina v Medical Appeal Tribunal (North Midland Region), Ex parte Hubble: 1958

The claimant sought to receive money out of insurance funds fed by contributions from all employers, insured persons and the Exchequer. The procedure for determining whether the claimant is entitled to a disability benefit was said to be more like an inquest than an action.
Diplock J said: ‘A claim by an insured person to benefit under the Act is not truly analogous to a lis inter partes. A claim to benefit is a claim to receive money out of the insurance funds . . Any such claim requires investigation to determine whether any, and if so, what amount of benefit is payable out of the fund. In such an investigation, the minister or the insurance officer is not a party adverse to the claimant. If analogy be sought in the other branches of the law, it is to be found in an inquest rather than in an action.’
Diplock J
[1958] 2 QB 228, [1958] 2 All ER 374
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kerr v Department for Social Development (Northern Ireland) HL 6-May-2004
Wrongful Refusal of Benefits
The claimant was estranged from his family, but claimed re-imbursement of the expenses for his brother’s funeral. The respondent required him to establish that none of his siblings was in a better position than he to pay for the funeral, but he had . .
Cited – Novitskaya v London Borough of Brent and Another CA 1-Dec-2009
Novitskaya_brentCA2009
The claimant appealed refusal of her claim for arrears of housing benefit.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The claim had been defective in having been made informally, but ‘the distribution of benefits is different from many other areas of civil . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.196893

Szoma v Southwark London Borough Council: Admn 17 Feb 2003

[2003] EWHC 356 (Admin)
Bailii
Asylum Support (Interim Provision) Regulations 1999
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Szoma v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 30-Jul-2003
The applicant, a foreign national had been given temporary admission to the UK. He received income support. But this ceased after his asylum application was rejected, and he remained resident.
Held: The legislation now made specific reference . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.185009

Regina v Saint Leonard, Shoreditch: 8 Nov 1865

Poor – Irremoveability – Break of Residence – 9 and 10 Vict, c. 66, s. 1.
A woman, having resided for sixteen years in the parish of S., was obliged through poverty to sell her furniture and give up her lodgings; and being destitute, she slept for one night on doorsteps in the same parish, and after that, for twenty-one successive nights in a refuge for the houseless poor in an adjoining parish ; during the daytime she wandered about, chiefly in the parish of S. She then applied to be admitted into the workhouse of S.; but being refused, she slept for two nights in the parish, and after that was received into the workhouse, and an order for her removal applied for.
Held, that the pauper had not ceased to reside in the parish of S., and was therefore irremoveable.
(1865-1866) LR 1 QB 21, [1865] UKLawRpKQB 8
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.653032

Vanbraekel and Others v Alliance nationale des mutualites chretiennes Case C-368/98 (Judgment): ECJ 12 Jul 2001

The applicant was insured under the national health insurance scheme, but received treatment in another member state, he was entitled to be re-imbursed the higher cost even though it might be higher than the amount he would have been entitled to have claimed in his own country. To hold otherwise would discourage free supply of services through member states.
C-368/98, [2001] EUECJ C-368/98, C-368/98
Bailii
EC Treaty Article 234
European

Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.162732

Mclaughlin’s Application: QBNI 9 Feb 2016

The claimant appealed from refusal of payment of Bereavement Benefit and Widowed Parent’s Allowance on the grounds that she had neither married nor been civil partner of her deceased partner. She applied for judicial review of that decision on the ground that the relevant legislation was incompatible with the ECHR.
Held: That claim succeeded in part. Treacy J made a declaration of incompatibility under section 4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998, that section 39A(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 is incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR in conjunction with article 14 ‘insofar as it restricts eligibility for Widowed Parent’s Allowance by reference to the marital status of the applicant and the deceased’. He rejected the claim in relation to the bereavement payment.
Treacy J
[2016] NIQB 11
Bailii
Social Security Contributions and Benefits (NI) Act 1992 36A 39A, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Northern Ireland
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mclaughlin, Re Judicial Review CANI 13-Dec-2016
Widowed parent’s allowance. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the legislation was not incompatible with article 14, read either with article 8 or with A1P1 . .
Cited – McLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.564938

Mclaughlin, Re Judicial Review: CANI 13 Dec 2016

Widowed parent’s allowance. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the legislation was not incompatible with article 14, read either with article 8 or with A1P1
Morgan LCJ, Gillen LJ and Weatherup LJ
[2016] NICA 53
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 A1P1 8, Social Security Contributions and Benefits (NI) Act 1992 36A 39A
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Appeal from – Mclaughlin’s Application QBNI 9-Feb-2016
The claimant appealed from refusal of payment of Bereavement Benefit and Widowed Parent’s Allowance on the grounds that she had neither married nor been civil partner of her deceased partner. She applied for judicial review of that decision on the . .

Cited by:
Cited – McLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.605161

McLaughlin, Re Judicial Review: SC 30 Aug 2018

The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction to the new system. (Northern Ireland) Widowed parent’s allowance
Held: Discrimination in the eligibility conditions for widowed parent’s allowance fell within the ambit of Article 8, not because the denial of the benefit had any direct or real impact on the claimant’s family life, but because the allowance was a ”modality of the exercise of the right’ guaranteed by article 8, because it is a way in which the state shows respect for children and the life of the family of which they are a part in circumstances where securing the family life of children is among the principal values protected by article 8′.
Orse – In re McLaughlin
‘Strictly speaking, the margin of appreciation has no application in domestic law. Nevertheless, when considering whether a measure does fall within the margin, it is necessary to consider what test would be applied in Strasbourg . . ‘
Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, Lady Black
[2018] UKSC 48, [2018] 1 WLR 4250, UKSC 2017/0035
Bailii,
Civil Partnership Act 2004, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, European Convention on Human Rights, Social Security Contributions and Benefits (NI) Act 1992 36A 39A
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
Cited – Lindsay v United Kingdom ECHR 1986
The position of married couples is not comparable with the position of unmarried couples, so that differences in treatment between them do not amount to discrimination within the meaning of article 14 of the convention. . .
Cited – Inze v Austria ECHR 28-Oct-1987
Art 14 was engaged in respect of discrimination over future interests despite Marckx. The case turned on what singular provisions of Austrian inheritance law, whereby the illegitimate claimant had some, but incomplete, rights on his mother’s . .
Cited – Larkos v Cyprus ECHR 18-Feb-1999
The applicant had rented a house from the government, but was ordered to vacate the house following revocation of his tenancy. Because he had been a tenant of the government he was not, under domestic law, entitled to the security which he would . .
Cited – Willis v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jun-2002
Discrimination in the payment of ‘widows payment’ and widowed mother’s allowance infringed the rights conferred by article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 but no finding was made about the widow’s pension. The risk of the applicant being . .
Cited – Merger And Cros v France ECHR 22-Dec-2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1 in conjunction with Art. 14 with regard to the inheritance rights; No violation of P1-1 in conjunction with Art. 14 with regard to the capacity to . .
Cited – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
Cited – Steinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary) SC 27-Jun-2018
The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .
Cited – Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Others CA 28-Nov-2017
Sir Terence Etherton MR agreed with counsel that ‘the only sure common thread running through the various descriptions of the ambit test, for the purposes of article 14, in the several speeches in M [2006] 2 AC 91 is that the connection or link . .
Cited – Mclaughlin, Re Judicial Review CANI 13-Dec-2016
Widowed parent’s allowance. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the legislation was not incompatible with article 14, read either with article 8 or with A1P1 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Cited – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .
Cited – Stec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2006
(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination.
Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences . .
Cited – The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate SC 28-Jul-2016
(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rudi v Same HL 25-Jun-2008
Each claimant had arrived here with their parents, and stayed for several years. They were excluded from the scheme allowing families who had been here more than three years to stay here, because they had attained 18 and were no longer dependant on . .
Cited – Aldeguer Tomas v Spain ECHR 14-Jun-2016
‘The prohibition of discrimination enshrined in article 14 applies to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Convention article, for which the state has voluntarily decided to provide.’ . .
Cited – Aldeguer Tomas v Spain ECHR 14-Jun-2016
‘The prohibition of discrimination enshrined in article 14 applies to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Convention article, for which the state has voluntarily decided to provide.’ . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Mclaughlin’s Application QBNI 9-Feb-2016
The claimant appealed from refusal of payment of Bereavement Benefit and Widowed Parent’s Allowance on the grounds that she had neither married nor been civil partner of her deceased partner. She applied for judicial review of that decision on the . .
Cited – Vallianatos And Others v Greece (LS) ECHR 7-Nov-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 14
Discrimination
Exclusion of same-sex couples from ‘civil unions’: violation
Facts – The first application was lodged by two Greek nationals, and the second by six . .
Cited – AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rudi v Same HL 25-Jun-2008
Each claimant had arrived here with their parents, and stayed for several years. They were excluded from the scheme allowing families who had been here more than three years to stay here, because they had attained 18 and were no longer dependant on . .
Cited – Swift v Secretary of State for Justice CA 18-Mar-2013
The claimant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the 1976 Act infringed her human rights. She had been cohabiting for six months, when her partner was killed in an accident at work for which a third party was liable. Because she had not . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .

Cited by:
Cited – Elan-Cane, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 10-Mar-2020
No right to non-gendered passport
The claimant sought judicial review of the police of the respondent’s policy requiring a passport applicant to identify themselves as either male or female. The claimant began life as a female, but, with surgery, asserted a non-gendered identity. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.625426

Secretary of State for Defence v Hulme: CA 19 Nov 2003

The dispute arose from the treatment of a claim by the respondent, a service widow, for an Attributable Family Pension under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. AFPS evolved as an occupational pension scheme for the benefit of the armed forces generally, with provisions for age-related retirement pensions, as well as for attributable and non-attributable invaliding and death benefits.
This case turns on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of a prerogative instrument, the Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Air Force (the QR-RAF), which relate to the determination of the issue whether the death or injury, in respect of which a pension is claimed, was ‘attributable to service.’ Similar provisions are contained in other prerogative instruments for each of the other two branches of the armed forces.
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Sedley Mr Justice Munby
[2003] EWCA Civ 1611
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.188106

Hepple and Others v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 23 May 2000

The payment of differing amounts by way of an earnings allowance to men and women was not discriminatory, where the reason for the difference lay in the differing statutory retirement ages for men and women. The regime for equal treatment for statutory benefits must allow for arrangements to come into effect after the legislation came into effect to reflect historically different treatments.
Times 30-May-2000, C-196/98, [2000] EUECJ C-196/98
Bailii
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
European

Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.162402

Banks and Others v Theate Royal De La Monnaie: ECJ 30 Mar 2000

A self employed certificate in Form E101 issued by one member state for a worker who worked temporarily in another member state was to be treated as valid and respected in the absence of circumstances suggesting some invalidity. It made the worker subject to the social security rules of his home state. Such a certificate when issued could have retrospective effect.
Times 05-Apr-2000, C-178/97, [2000] EUECJ C-178/97
Bailii
European

Updated: 21 August 2021; Ref: scu.162118

C, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 9 Feb 2016

The Court was asked whether, in the context of awarding Jobseeker’s Allowance, the State has unjustifiably interfered with the right of transgender persons to have information about their gender reassignment kept private.
Held: The appeal failed. Elias LJ accepted that article 8 was engaged by both the Retention and the SCR policies, but agreed with Simon J that the interference was proportionate. He rejected the argument that article 14 required transgender customers to be treated differently from others. Any indirect discrimination entailed in the SCR policy was justified for the same reasons that the interference with article 8 rights was justified. A new argument, that the policies were contrary to the requirement in section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 that where a full gender recognition certificate is issued, ‘the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender’ was rejected: this did not require history to be rewritten.
Elias, Patten, Black LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 47, [2016] WLR(D) 68, [2016] PTSR 1344
Bailii, WLRD
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Gender Recognition Act 2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – C, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another Admn 18-Jul-2014
The court was asked as to the extent to which the State should retain personal information about citizens, and whether its policies or practices for doing so comply with the human rights of those citizens. It arose in the instant case in a . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – C, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 1-Nov-2017
This case is about how the Department for Work and Pensions (the DWP), in administering our complex welfare benefits system, treats people with a reassigned gender, and specifically whether certain policies conflict (1) with the Gender Recognition . .
Cited – AR, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Another SC 30-Jul-2018
The appellant had been tried for and acquitted on a criminal charge. He now challenged the disclosure by the respondent of the charge in an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate.
Held: His appeal failed. The critical question was whether the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.559582

ET v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC): UTAA 26 Feb 2021

Identification of those who can in fact accompany the claimant initially on journey to and from work in an unfamiliar location – whether consideration of substantial risk under paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the United Credit Regulations can include travel to and from the Jobcentre and job interviews as well as to and from work – Charlton (RIB)2/09, MW v SSWP [2015] UKUT 665 (AAC) and NS v SSWP (ESA) [2014] UKUT 115 (AAC); [2014] AACR 33 considered – MW not followed.
[2021] UKUT 47 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.666390

Regina (NL) v First-Tier Tribunal and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Criminal Injuries Compensation – Tribunal Procedure and Practice – Fair Hearing): UTAA 1 Jul 2021

Tribunal practice and procedure-Fair hearing-Practice Direction: First Tier and Upper Tribunal – Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Witnesses-The principles in RT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2019] UKUT 207 (AAC), AA and BA v A Local Authority (SEN) [2021] UKUT 54 (AAC), and JE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2020] UKUT 17 apply to the First Tier Tribunal when exercising its criminal injuries compensation jurisdiction as they do when exercising its social security and child support and special educational needs jurisdictions
[2021] UKUT 158 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.666418

MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC): UTAA 22 Feb 2021

Universal credit – employed earnings – return by employer of deposit paid by employee on uniform – not earnings.
Universal credit – late payment of wages – information was timely as reported to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom when paid.
Universal credit – regulation 61 discretion – may only be exercised in relation to error or failing.
[2021] UKUT 46 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.666391

Moore and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 23 Jun 2021

The applicants sought permission to appeal the decision of Swift J dismissing their claim for judicial review concerning the difference in treatment between Maternity Allowance (‘MA’) and Statutory Maternity Payment (‘SMP’) when calculating the amount of Universal Credit (‘UC’) payable to them. Their case is that these two payment types are not relevantly distinguishable but despite this they are treated very differently: MA is treated as ‘unearned income’ and deducted in full from an award of UC whereas SMP is treated as ‘earned income’ and is subject to an earnings disregard and deducted from an award of UC on a tapered basis.
Lady Justice Simler
[2021] EWCA Civ 970
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.663468

MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA): UTAA 15 Apr 2021

Claimant for employment and support allowance found to have limited capability for work but not limited capability for work-related activity – Claimant appealed to tribunal saying he should be in support group because of inappropriate behaviour – No points awarded for inappropriate behaviour – DWP appeals officer provided tribunal office with Unacceptable Customer Behaviour (UCB) report of incident involving claimant on visit to JobCentre – UCB report not disclosed to claimant but relied upon by tribunal in reaching its decision that he was not entitled to support group rate – Whether tribunal erred in law as to (i) application of regulation 35 and (ii) reliance on evidence that had not been disclosed to the claimant.
[2021] UKUT 90 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 August 2021; Ref: scu.666404

Regina (on the Application of Bibi) v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Housing Benefit Review Board: Admn 27 Nov 2001

The respondent board had refused to pay housing benefit on the basis that the claimant’s tenancy was not run on a commercial basis. She asserted that they had not given her a fair opportunity to be heard. New regulations had changed the treatment of her situation, and the board had delayed its decision to her disadvantage.
Held: The delay was short and not unfair. The factors relevant to assessing whether an agreement was on a commercial basis are not closed but include all the circumstances and particularly the absence of a rent book, that occupation had arisen at the instigation of the claimant, who was agent for the property, who entered it without consultation; and the absence of possession proceedings. Was the tribunal independent. It comprised councillors and council workers. There was no sound basis in this case for concluding that the appearance of a lack of independence and impartiality gave rise to a violation of article 6.
Justice Newman
[2001] EWHC Admin 967
Bailii
Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 1998 (1998 No.3257), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 130, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.167276

SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA): UTAA 4 Feb 2021

DLA, AA, MA: general-Other-Circumstances in which a decision to award disability living allowance may be superseded so as to give rise to an overpayment. Reviews, revisions and supersessions-Change of circumstances – Circumstances in which a decision to award disability living allowance may be superseded so as to give rise to an overpayment.
[2021] UKUT 119 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.666395

CT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA): UTAA 4 Jun 2021

Employment and Support Allowance – regulation 36 of Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 – precedent – First – tier Tribunal bound by decisions of the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber (in particular the decision in IM v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2014] UKUT 412 (AAC)) and not free to ignore them.
[2021] UKUT 131 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.666410

TN v First-Tier Tribunal and East Sussex County Council: UTAA 19 Apr 2021

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act s.11(5)(d) and 11(1) mean that a challenge to a refusal to review on the ground of change of circumstances under r.48 of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules has to be brought by way of application to the Upper Tribunal for judicial review and not as an appeal. 2. The test of whether ‘circumstances relevant to the decision have changed’ does not require, in order to meet the threshold condition for a review, the applicant to establish that the changed circumstances would have affected the decision. Nor is it a pre-condition that the changed circumstances relate to a matter expressly addressed in the Education Health and Care Plan. R(EL and JB) v FtT and Surrey CC [2020] UKUT 4 (AAC) applied.
[2021] UKUT 98 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 August 2021; Ref: scu.666406

PD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): UTAA 8 Jul 2021

Tribunal procedure and practice-Tribunal practice – Withdrawal of appeals – Circumstances in which a direction under rule 17(3)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 may be given
Tribunal procedure and practice-Tribunal practice – Circumstances in which a judge or tribunal member is excluded from sitting following an adjournment – SW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2019] UKUT 415 (AAC), R(U) 3/88, JH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and MH [2016] UKUT 158 (AAC), Midland Container Logistics Ltd [2020] UKUT 5 (AAC) and GO and HO v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (SEN) [2015] UKUT 184 (AAC) discussed.
Tribunal procedure and practice-Fair hearing-First-tier Tribunal’s duty to be, and appear, impartial-Proper approach where fraud is a possibility-Undesirability of creating a perception that the First-tier Tribunal is hostile to one of the parties before it.
[2021] UKUT 172 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.666417

BB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (RP): UTAA 9 Jun 2021

Claimant applied in United Kingdom for retirement pension on reaching 65 in 2001 and was paid 82% of a full pension based on his incomplete National Insurance Contributions record – Claimant subsequently moved to Spain, then Malta and then Turkey – Legislation governing payment of retirement pension abroad – Department for Work and Pensions later revised award to 89% of the full pension, the extra 7% reflecting 3 years spent living and working in New Zealand from 1958-1960 (‘the NZ enhancement’), awarded under the Social Security (New Zealand) Order 1983 (SI 1983/1894) – DWP decided payment of NZ enhancement only applied when claimant was living in UK, Spain or Malta – NZ enhancement withdrawn when claimant went to reside in Turkey, outside the European Economic Area, in 2007 – proper construction of Article 9 of the UK/NZ Convention on social security.
[2021] UKUT 141 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.666409

RS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA): UTAA 31 Jan 2021

This decision seeks to explain the legal mechanism by which a person who was entitled to the contributions-based element of Employment Support Allowance is awarded the income-based element. It also highlights a number of shortcomings in Department for Work and Pensions practices regarding record-keeping, conduct of interviews under caution in overpayment cases and the provision of documentary evidence to the First-tier Tribunal. The decision expresses concern at the DWP’s apparent inability to explain to the First-tier Tribunal the meaning of certain decision-making codes used in the ‘notepad’ entries that record claimant contacts and actions taken on awards.
[2021] UKUT 112 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.666389

RJ v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v RJ: UTAA 15 Feb 2021

Tax credits couples and joint claims – death of spouse – construction of section 3 of Tax Credits Act 2002 – whether claimant subject to unlawful discrimination under Human Rights Act 1998 on basis of status as widower – effect of regulation 15(3) of Tax Credits (Claims and Notifications) Regulations 2002 – whether appeal lapsed and effect of lapse on appeal to Upper Tribunal – whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs entitled to withdraw erroneous concession
[2021] UKUT 40 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.666394

MS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA and PIP): UTAA 17 Feb 2021

Claimant awarded Disability Living Allowance continuously with effect from start of DLA scheme in early 1990s – Secretary of State in 2008 superseded entitlement decision and imposed recoverable overpayment from January 2003 – Tribunal issued appellant with warning at start of hearing that it had power to go back to an earlier date – Appellant elected to proceed following short break to consider his position – Tribunal superseded DLA entitlement decision going back to October 1998 – Whether breach of natural justice – R(IB) 2/04, CDLA/884/2008, DH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) [2012] UKUT 330 (AAC), BK v SSWP [2009] UKUT 258 (AAC), BTC v SSWP (PIP) [2015] UKUT 155 (AAC) and Northern Ireland Commissioner’s decision C15/08-09 (DLA) considered
[2021] UKUT 41 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.666392

LG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC): UTAA 29 Apr 2021

Universal Credit

Universal Credit – claimant received two payments from her employers during the assessment period of one calendar month (her employers made her 13 payments covering 28 days each during a calendar year)- whether both payments made during same assessment period should be taken into account – regulation 54(1) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 considered.
[2021] UKUT 121 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 August 2021; Ref: scu.666403

PR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): UTAA 10 Feb 2021

Tribunal practice and procedure – rules 5(3)(d) and 15(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 – proper approach to deciding whether to admit new evidence which is sought to be adduced to support a ground of appeal that the decision appealed against involved the making of a mistake of fact amounting to a material error of law.
[2021] UKUT 35 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 August 2021; Ref: scu.666393

SXC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: Admn 23 Oct 2019

Swift J
[2019] EWHC 2774 (Admin)
Bailii
Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office Admn 28-Jul-2021
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory
The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.643838

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM and Another: CA 4 Dec 2013

The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling made against him as to the processes used for deciding whether a claimant was entitled to employment and support allowance.
Held: It was not within the power of the Upper Tribunal to order the appellant to gather evidence to support or otherwise a proposed amendment.
Maurice Kay VP CA, Elias, Vos LJJ
[2014] Eq LR 34, [2013] EWCA Civ 1565, [2014] 1 WLR 1716, [2013] WLR(D) 469, [2014] 2 All ER 289
Bailii, WLRD
Welfare Reform Act 2007, Equality Act 2010
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Firstgroup Plc v Paulley SC 18-Jan-2017
The claimant wheelchair user alleged discrimination by the bus company. The space reserved for wheelchair users on a bus had been wrongly occupied by a passenger who refused to vacate the space. The claimant said that the bus driver should have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.518773

Adiatu and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Her Majesty’S Treasury: Admn 15 Jun 2020

The claim challenges certain decisions made by the Treasury in relation to the availability of support by way of Statutory Sick Pay (‘SSP’) and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (‘JRS’).
Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Cavanagh
[2020] EWHC 1554 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office Admn 28-Jul-2021
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory
The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.651868

Jankovic v Croatia: ECHR 2000

Although a claim to a social security benefit is a possession (thereby attracting article 14) it does not entitle one to anything in particular.
(2000) 30 EHRR CD183
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Muller v Austria ECHR 1975
Article 1 does not guarantee a right to a pension of any particular amount, but that the right safeguarded by Article 1 consists, at most, ‘in being entitled as a beneficiary of the social insurance scheme to any payments made by the fund.’ A claim . .

Cited by:
Cited – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.225369

Aspinall, Pepper and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another: Admn 8 Dec 2014

Claim for judicial review of the decision by the Minister for Disabled People to close the Independent Living Fund with effect from 30 June 2015, and to transfer funding to the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, and to local authorities in England.
Andrews DBE J
[2014] EWHC 4134 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.539767

Regina v National Insurance Commissioner, Ex parte Hudson: HL 1972

The House considered whether it would have power to make a ruling with prospective effect only. Lord Diplock said the matter deserved further consideration; Lord Simon said that the possibility of prospective overruling should be seriously considered, but that he would prefer legislation, saying that ‘informed professional opinion’ was probably to the effect that the House had no power to overrule decisions with prospective effect only.
Viscount Dilhorne discussed the freedom if any to overturn a recent case: ‘[I]f the view be that the decision is clearly wrong, it is, I think, easier to decide that a recent case should not be followed than if it is one that has stood for a long time, for if it is in the latter category many may have acted in reliance on it.’
Lord Reid said that the power given to the House by the Practice Statement was to be applied only in a small number of cases in which previous decisions of the House were ‘thought to be impeding the proper development of the law or to have led to results which were unjust or contrary to public policy.’
Lord Diplock said: ‘Section 5 (1946 Act), which contains the general description of and conditions of entitlement to each of the three benefits, avoids the use of the compound phrase ‘personal injury by accident’ which had appeared in successive Workmen’s Compensation Acts since 1897. It is reasonable to suppose that the change in phraseology was deliberate – though there is an isolated lapse into the expression ‘personal injury by accident’ in section 48(2) of the statute.’
Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Reid
[1972] AC 944
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1946 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .

Cited by:
Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Cited – Horton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Cited – Gibson v United States of America PC 23-Jul-2007
(The Bahamas) The US government sought the extradition of the appellant from the Bahamas on drugs charges. The warrants were found to be void, and the defendant released unconditionally, when the nmagistrate rejected evidence from an admitted . .
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.228279

PM, Regina (on The Application of) v Hertfordshire County Council: Admn 4 Aug 2010

The claimant asylum seeker challenged a decision that he was over 18 years old. The tribunal had found him over 18, but he sought to bring additional evidence to the authority to gainsay that finding. The authority said that it was bound by the tribunal’s decision.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision made by the Immigration tribunal was not a decision in rem, and it was not binding on the authority. The obligations falling on an aiuthority under the 1989 Act were not those of convcerne to the Tribunal. An authority looking at such a questions must admit new evidence as appropriate.
Hickinbottom J
[2010] EWHC 2056 (Admin), [2010] WLR(D) 229
Bailii, WLRD
Children Act 1989 17 20
England and Wales

Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.421360