Category: Benefits

LE: UTAA 24 Aug 2009

The decision of the appeal tribunal held on 2 November 2007 is erroneous in point of law. I set aside that decision. I re-make that decision pursuant to s.12(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The claimant is not entitled to contribution based Jobseeker’s Allowance in respect of the claim made on 23 November 2007.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 166 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433371

Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: ECJ 17 Mar 2011

ECJ Opinion – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Sickness benefits – Invalidity benefits – Special non-contributory benefits – Definitions – Short-term incapacity benefit in youth – Conditions for granting – Conditions of residence and presence in the territory of the Member State – Lawfulness – Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 19 and 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.

Citations:

[2012] AACR 8, [2012] 1 CMLR 13, [2011] EUECJ C-503/09, [2012] PTSR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

Jurisdiction:

European

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: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430723

Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse (Social Security For Migrant Workers): ECJ 10 Mar 2011

ECJ Social security for workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Scope ratione personae – Interpretation of the term ’employed person’ – Benefits for a dependent child – Extension of unpaid leave.

Citations:

C-516/09, [2011] EUECJ C-516/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430701

Parkin, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 19 Sep 2019

‘The Claimant challenges the effect of regulation 62 of the Universal Credit Regulations (2013 SI No 376) (‘the Regulations’). The Regulations make provision about a welfare benefit, Universal Credit (‘UC’). Regulation 62 provides for a minimum income floor (‘MIF’). I will say more about its effect in due course. The Claimant argues that regulation 62 discriminates against her contrary to article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), on the grounds of her status as a self-employed person. She also argues that regulation 62 is irrational at common law, and that the Secretary of State did not, in formulating regulation 62, have due regard to the equality needs listed in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010′

Judges:

Elisabeth Laing J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2356 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.642695

Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 31 Jul 2015

The Claimant challenged the decision to require her to participate in the Skills Conditionality scheme under the provisions of the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013 No 276) (‘the SAPOE Regulations’); and, more generally, the Jobseeker’s Allowance Post Work Programme Support measures of which that requirement was part.

Judges:

Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2284 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.550953

Landtova (Social Security For Migrant Workers): ECJ 3 Mar 2011

ECJ Freedom of movement for workers – Social security – Regulation No 1408/71 – Convention on Social Security concluded between Member States before their accession to the European Union – Provision of Old Age – Member State competent to assess the contribution periods completed – Double take into account a period of assessment – Article 39 EC – Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and residence – Repair of discrimination.

Citations:

C-399/09, [2011] EUECJ C-399/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430340

Grogan, Regina (on the Application of) v Bexley NHS Care Trust and others: Admn 25 Jan 2006

The claimant was elderly and in need of care in a nursing home. She claimed that her care needs had been assessed by an unlawful protocol applied by the health authority. She said that she qualified under the criteria for Continuing Health Care.
Held: The question for the court was whether in carrying out its assessment the Defendant had taken a lawful approach in, and by applying, its criteria, and whether it did not apply the primary health need approach. The criteria used were flawed as alleged.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 44 (Admin), [2006] LGR 491

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Health Service Act 1977 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
Cited – Regina v North Derbyshire Health Authority ex parte Kenneth Graeme Fisher Admn 11-Jul-1997
The court considered the duty of the authority to take account of guidance issued by the Secretary of State: ‘If the circular provided no more than guidance, albeit in strong terms, then the only duty placed upon health authorities was to take it . .

Cited by:

Cited – Green, Regina (on the Application of) v South West Strategic Health Authority Admn 28-Oct-2008
The claimant said that whilst resident in a care home, her care should have been paid for as health care under ‘Continuing Health Care.’ She said that the decision maker had failed to comply with the Health Authorities guidelines.
Held: In . .
Cited – Forge Care Homes Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and Others SC 2-Aug-2017
The court was asked who is legally responsible for paying for the work done by registered nurses in social rather than health care settings. Is the National Health Service responsible for all the work they do or are the social care funders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.238156

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants: CA 27 Jun 1996

The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who were awaiting appeal.
Held: Leaving asylum applicants without benefits defeated the purpose of the asylum laws. The Regulations were quashed. Parliament cannot have intended a significant number of genuine asylum seekers to be impaled on the horns of so intolerable a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status, or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution. Non-asylum-seeking immigrants had since 1980 invariably been admitted subject to the condition of ‘no recourse to public funds’ and, more importantly, unlike asylum seekers, can in any event return to their country of origin.

Judges:

Neill LJ, Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Times 27-Jun-1996, [1997] 1 WLR 275, [1996] 4 All ER 385, [1996] EWCA Civ 1293

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 21, Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Regulations 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Husain) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 5-Oct-2001
New regulations created a system under which applicants for asylum could be deprived of all benefits on the decision of an asylum support adjudicator. That person was appointed by the Home Secretary, and it was alleged was not impartial. It was . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte F S Salem Admn 11-Dec-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him asylum. The decision had been made and his benefits stopped, but he was not given any detail of the notice for several months.
Held: The decision did appear to have been made and . .
Cited – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
Cited – K v London Borough of Lambeth CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review. She had entered the UK, and applied for asylum. She was then found to have contracted a marriage of convenience, and thus become ineligible for support. She appealed and now sought housing . .
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 – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Cited – Unison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 26-Jul-2017
The union appellant challenged the validity of the imposition of fees on those seeking to lay complaints in the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The fees were discriminatory and restricted access to justice.
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.87771

da Silva Martins v Bank Betriebskrankenkasse-Pflegekasse (Free Movement Of Persons): ECJ 13 Jan 2011

ECJ (Opinion) Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Sickness benefit – Former migrant worker who has acquired a right in the State of employment to cover the risk of dependence on compulsory affiliation – Return to the State of origin – Absence of coverage of the risk of dependency in the State of origin – Possibility of maintaining, on an optional basis, affiliation to the long-term care insurance scheme in the former State of employment And to obtain the payment of the dependency allowance in the State of origin
The Court observed that benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care, unlike sickness benefits, were not intended to be paid on a short term basis and might, in the detail of their application, display characteristics resembling invalidity and old age benefits.

Citations:

C-388/09, [2011] EUECJ C-388/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

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: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428017

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne and Another: CA 14 Dec 2010

Appeal by Secretary of State against judicial review finding unlawful the deductions made from the claimants’ social security benefit allowances after the claimants Debt Relief Order had come to an end.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Mummery, Smith, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1431, [2011] BPIR 223, [2011] 1 WLR 1723, [2011] PTSR 912

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Payne and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 26-Jul-2010
The court was asked as to the lawfulness of the Secretary of State making deductions from ongoing social security benefit to recover the overpayment of incapacity benefit and the repayment of a social fund budgeting loan during the moratorium period . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.427270

R(SB) 15/87: SSAT 1986

‘It is well settled that responsibility for keeping the Department informed of any change in a claimant’s circumstances rests and remains upon the claimant . .’ and ‘. . To whom is there this obligation to disclose? We are concerned here with breaches of the obligation which have the consequence that expenditure is incurred by the Secretary of State; and, in our view, the obligation is to disclose to a member or members of the staff of an office of the Department handling the transaction giving rise to the expenditure . . We accept that a claimant cannot be expected to identify the precise person or persons who have the handling of his claim. His duty is best fulfilled by disclosure to the local office where his claim is being handled, either in the claim form or otherwise in terms that make sufficient reference to his claim to enable the matter disclosed to be referred to the proper person . . But . . there can be other occasions when the duty can be fulfilled by disclosure elsewhere. This can happen, for instance, if an officer in another office of the Department of Health and Social Security or local unemployment benefit office accepts information in circumstances which make it reasonable for the claimant to think the matters disclosed will be passed on to the local office in question.’

Citations:

Unreported, 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Affirmed – CG/4494/99 SSAT 1999
. .
Cited – Hinchy v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 3-Mar-2005
The applicant had been dependent upon income support, and had then come to receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA). She therefore received additional income support, but the office did not adjust that benefit down when her DLA stopped. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.223209

R(SB) 12/91: SSAT 1991

The Tribunal sought to construe the phrase ‘an immediately repayable debt’ for Income Support purposes : ‘A person has to pay his debts. He has no choice in the matter and if he has no choice, then any divesting of capital resources in pursuance of the reduction or discharge of his indebtedness cannot be for the purpose of securing supplementary benefit or any increase thereof. Such a motive cannot direct or influence his course of action. There can only be one purpose governing his conduct, namely the need to meet his indebtedness.
14. Of course, the above principle only applies where the relevant debt is immediately payable. If the obligation to repay does not mature for several years, or, as in the case of the usual mortgage of house property, there is no need to repay the sum borrowed, provided the agreed interest and capital repayments are kept up, then any premature repayment of indebtedness will be voluntary act constituting a deliberate choice. And if there is a choice then the question will arise as to whether a significant operative purpose albeit not necessarily the predominant purpose, was to secure supplementary benefit or any increase thereof (R(SB) 38/85; R (SB) 40/85).
15. In the present case, if the Tribunal find as a fact that the claimant was genuinely indebted to his daughters, and they must be satisfied that there was a legal debt capable of enforcement in the courts, and if they are satisfied that such debt was immediately repayable, then as regards any sum employed in reduction or discharge of that indebtedness, regulation 4(1) will have no application. But if the new Tribunal are not so satisfied, and consider that there was no such indebtedness enforceable at law, or, if there was, that it was not immediately repayable, they must then go on to consider whether a substantive reason for the payment to the daughters was to secure supplementary benefit.’

Judges:

Commissioner Rice

Citations:

R(SB) 12/91

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had spent some twelve thousand pounds on a car. She now appealed a refusal of benefit based upon the suggestion that she had deliberately reduced her capital to make herself eligible. She had sold land, but the proceeds had been used to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.186339

PA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): UTAA 2 Sep 2019

Personal Independence Payment – Daily living activity 2 (taking nutrition); whether claimant can be expected to adapt their diet so that they can better perform the activity; relevance of pain and discomfort experienced when carrying out the activity to question of whether the activity can be performed ‘to an acceptable standard’

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 270 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.642315

Tilianu, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 8 Dec 2010

The court was asked ‘whether an EU citizen who is no longer a self-employed person retains the status of worker or self-employed person in the circumstances described in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of article 7(3) [of Directive 2004/38] by virtue of his previous employment as a self-employed person.’

Judges:

Sedley, Moore-Bick, Elias LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1397, [2011] PTSR 781, [2011] Eu LR 397, [2011] 2 CMLR 12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, European

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426906

KM, Regina (on The Application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council: Admn 26 Nov 2010

The claimant sought leave to bring judicial review of the decision of the Respondent as to the amount attributable to his care package.
Held: Leave was refused.

Judges:

Bidder QC J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3065 (Admin), (2011) 14 CCL Rep 83

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – KM, Regina (on The Application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 9-Jun-2011
The claimant was a severely disabled adult, entitled to assistance under the 1970 Act. He had been refused leave to bring judicial review of the decision as to the extent of that assistance.
Held: Leave was granted, and the court decided to . .
At first instance – KM, Regina (on The Application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council SC 31-May-2012
The respondent had assessed the claimant’s annual care needs. He challenged the calculations. The authority had a system which calculated the average needs for support adding a sum to reflect particular critical need. An independent expert had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426710

SO, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: CA 12 Oct 2010

The court was asked upon whom falls the financial burden of providing accommodation to an eighteen year old asylum seeker who is also a ‘former relevant child’, to the extent that his welfare requires it, where the asylum seeker is not in education or training. Does it fall upon the local authority, pursuant to its duty under s.23C(4)(c) of the Children Act 1989, as amended, hereinafter ‘the Act’, or does it fall upon the National Asylum Support Service hereinafter ‘NASS’, and thus upon the Secretary of State, pursuant to her powers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999?

Judges:

Jacob, Leveson, Tomplinson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1101, [2011] 1 WLR 1283, [2011] 1 FLR 734, [2011] PTSR 549, [2011] BLGR 1, [2011] HLR 4, [2011] Fam Law 24, (2010) 13 CCL Rep 591

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SL v Westminster City Council SC 9-May-2013
The applicant for assistance from the respondent Council under the 1948 Act was a destitute, homeless failed asylum seeker. He had been admitted to hospital for psychiatric care, but the Council had maintained that his condition was part of and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Children, Local Government

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424981

EBA v The Advocate General for Scotland: SCS 10 Sep 2010

(Inner House) The petitioner wished to appeal against refusal of disability living allowance. Her appeal to the first tier tribunal was rejected, and her request to the Upper Tribunal for leave to appeal was refused. When, she then sought leave to bring judicial review of that refusal, it was said that decisions of the UT were not subject to review save in limited circumstances (excess of jurisdiction or unfairness of procedure).
Held: The court allowed the reclaiming motion, refused the cross-appeal and remitted the case to the Lord Ordinary to proceed as accords.

Judges:

Lord President, Lord Kingearth, Lord Brodie

Citations:

[2010] ScotCS CSIH – 78, 2010 SLT 1047, 2010 GWD 31-634, [2010] STC 2689, 2010 SCLR 759, 2011 SC 70, [2010] STI 2617, [2010] CSIH 78

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
At Outer House – EBA, Re Judicial Review SCS 31-Mar-2010
The petitioner claimed disability living allowance. Her claim was refused, and eventually also at the Upper Tribunal, of whose decision she now sought judicial review.
Held: The Upper Tribunal being designated as a court of superior record. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Appeal from – EBA v Advocate General for Scotland SC 21-Jun-2011
The appellant had sought to challenge refusal of disability living allowance. Ultimately her request a judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decion was rejected on the basis that the UT, being a court of superior record, was not susceptible to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Benefits, Judicial Review

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.424090

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v NZ (ESA) (Final Decision): UTAA 13 Aug 2019

European Union Law – Agreement On European Economic Area – The observations of the Supreme Court in SSWP v Gubeladze [2019] UKSC 31, holding that factual, not legal, residence is what Article 17(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38 requires, are equally applicable to Article 17(1)(b).

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 250 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.642308