Fratila and Another v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions and Another: CA 18 Dec 2020

Appeal from refusal of challenge to new benefits rules preventing reliance upon the leave to remain in the United Kingdom arising from the ‘pre-settled status’ (‘PSS’) (granted to European Union nationals including the Appellants, in anticipation of the UK’s secession from the Union) in order for them to meet the qualifying residence tests which are a condition of entitlement to certain social assistance benefits

Judges:

Lord Justice McCombe

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1741

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Income Related Benefits) (Updating and Amendment) (EU exit) Regulations 2019

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.656878

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Sutherland: Admn 7 Nov 1996

The Secretary of State has no power to issue regulations which would withhold benefits pending an appeal against their refusal. Laws J said: ‘where the executive has been allowed by the legislature to make law, it must abide strictly by the terms of its delegated authority.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-1997, [1996] EWHC Admin 208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina CA 23-Jun-2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Constitutional

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136756

Burton v London Borough of Camden: HL 27 Jan 2000

One tenant left the other in a flat subject to a protected secure tenancy. The legislation prohibited assignment of such tenancies. In order to support an application by the remaining tenant the departing tenant executed a deed purporting to release her interest in the tenancy.
Held: Arcane notions of the ownership of the entire property by each of two joint tenants should not be used to get around the legislation. Whether expressed as assignment, surrender, release or otherwise, it could not change the nature of the tenancy.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000, [2000] 2 WLR 427, [2000] UKHL 8, [2000] 2 AC 399, [2000] 1 All ER 943, (2000) 79 P and CR D38, [2000] 1 EGLR 49, [2000] 14 EG 149, [2000] 1 FCR 481, [2000] NPC 16, (2000) 32 HLR 625, [2000] L and TR 235, [2000] BLGR 289, [2000] EG 23

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSolihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Hickin SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimant’s parents were secure joint tenants. After her father left, the mother later died. The respondent served a notice on the father terminating the tenancy since as the survivor and not resident, he was not entitled to continue the tenancy. . .
CitedSims v Dacorum Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
Husband and wife had been joint tenants of the council. On the breakdown of the marriage, W gave notice to quit. H defended the council’s possession action, saying that it was an infringement of his human rights for him to lose his tenancy and home. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Benefits

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135057

Burchell v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 9 Jul 1987

ECJ The rule against overlapping payments laid down in the first sentence of article 10 (1)(a) of regulation no 574/72 applies where family benefits or family allowances are due, in pursuance of article 73 of regulation no 1408/71, in respect of a child who, as a member of the family of one of the recipients of such benefits or allowances, is a person covered by the community legislation on social security for employed persons, without there being any need to ascertain whether the other recipient who is also entitled to such benefits in respect of the same child is also covered by that legislation.
Where a family benefit is due under national legislation alone, irrespective of the children’ s place of residence and without it being necessary to invoke article 73 of regulation no 1408/71 in order to become entitled to the benefit, that benefit cannot be deemed to be due in pursuance of article 73, and the first sentence of article 10(1)(a) of regulation no 574/72 does not apply.

Judges:

Kakouris P

Citations:

C-377/85, R-377/85, [1987] EUECJ R-377/85

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134284

EAM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) (Not A Material Error On A Point of Law): UTAA 7 Aug 2020

Universal credit-other-capital-disregards-proceeds of sale of former home-whether the ‘reasonable certainty’ test in R(IS) 7/01 remains good law following In re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35. Universal credit-other-capital-disregards-proceeds of sale of former home-Universal Credit Regulations, Schedule 10, para.13(a)-meaning of ‘attributable to the proceeds of sale’. Universal credit-other-migration from existing benefits-whether ‘natural’ migration from existing benefits gives rise to transitional protection from the universal credit capital limit.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 247 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656576

Sm v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ii): UTAA 15 Oct 2020

Industrial diseases – A12 (carpel tunnel syndrome) – Distribution of Median nerve Tribunal procedure and practice (including Upper tribunal) – Evidence – Whether the principles in Ladd v Marshall apply where the First-Tier Tribunal in the exercise of its inquisitorial jurisdiction and enabling role has misdirected itself on a point on uncontentious fact.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 287 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656587

Walsh v National Insurance Officer: ECJ 22 May 1980

ECJ 1. Social security for migrant workers – worker – concept – definition vis-a-vis legislation – effect – purpose
(regulation no 1408/71 of the council, annex I, part I, paragraph 1)
2. Social security for migrant workers – worker – concept – person no longer paying contributions but entitled to benefits by virtue of contributions paid – inclusion
(regulations nos 1408/71 and 574/72 of the council)
3. Social security for migrant workers – legislation of member states within meaning of article 8 of regulation no 574/72 – concept (regulation no 574/72 of the council, art. 8) 4. Social security for migrant workers – claims, declarations or appeals submitted in another member state – admissibility – determination by institution or court of the competent member state (regulation no 1408/71 of the council, art. 86)
5. Social security of migrants workers – benefits – rules against overlapping – maternity benefit – article 8 of regulation no 574/72 – scope (regulation no 574/72 of the council, art. 8)
1. The provision in paragraph (1) of part I (united kingdom) of annex v to regulation no 1408/71, far from restricting the definition of the term ‘ ‘ worker ‘ ‘ as it emerges from article 1 (a) of the regulation, is solely concerned to clarify the scope of subparagraph (ii) of that paragraph vis-a-vis British legislation.
2. A person who is entitled under the legislation of a member state to benefits covered by regulation no 1408/71 by virtue of contributions previously paid compulsorily does not lose his status as a ‘ ‘ worker ‘ ‘ within the meaning of regulations nos 1408/71 and 574/72 by reason only of the fact that at the time when the contingency occurred he was no longer paying contributions and was not bound to do so.
3. The phrase ‘ ‘ legislations of two or more member states ‘ ‘, which occurs in article 8 of regulation no 574/72, must be understood as also including the provisions of community regulations.
4. Article 86 of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that where a claim, declaration or appeal is submitted to an authority, institution or court of a member state other than that under the legislation of which the benefit must be awarded, that authority, institution or court has no power to determine the admissibility of the claim, declaration or appeal in question. That power belongs exclusively to the authority, institution or court of the member state under the legislation of which the benefit must be awarded and to which the claim, declaration or appeal must in all circumstances be forwarded.
5. Article 8 of regulation no 574/72 applies only to the extent to which a claim by the person concerned may in fact be satisfied by the application of the legislation of two or more member states and only in regard to the period for which the claimant may claim benefits under the legislation specified by that article.
On the other hand that provision does not preclude a person who has exhausted the maximum entitlement awarded by the state of the confinement from benefiting for an additional period from benefits awarded by other legislation to which she has been subject and which, for reasons of the welfare of the mother and child, allows a longer period of leave from work. Indeed, such a result could not be regarded as coming within the category of ‘ ‘ unjustified overlapping ‘ ‘ which the provision in question seeks to prevent.

Citations:

C-143/79, R-143/79, [1980] EUECJ R-143/79

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132913

SM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA): UTAA 2 Sep 2020

This decision is about whether payments from a discretionary trust established under the Appellant’s parents’ wills are ‘voluntary payments’ within the meaning of paragraph 16(3)(b) of Schedule 8 to the ESA Regulations and, if they are, whether the disregard provisions fall to be disapplied pursuant to paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 8, which provides that paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 8 does not apply to ‘a payment which is made by a person for the maintenance of any member of that person’s family…’.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 265 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.656582

Caisse d’assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salaries de Paris v Duffy: ECJ 10 Dec 1969

ECJ (Judgment) Social security for migrant workers – rules of community law – limitation of benefits arising from the application of community regulations – maintenance of advantages obtained outside community regulations. (EEC treaty, articles 48 to 51) It is incompatible with the objectives of articles 48 to 51 of the EEC treaty which constitute the basis, the framework and the bounds of the social security regulations to reduce the rights of workers without conferring upon them the compensating benefits prescribed in those regulations. Limitations may therefore be imposed on workers only in cases in which community regulations confer upon them benefits which they would otherwise be unable to obtain.

Citations:

C-34/69, R-34/69, [1969] EUECJ R-34/69

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 48 49 50 51

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.132011

Ciechelski v Caisse Regionale de securite sociale du Centre d’Orleans etc: ECJ 5 Jul 1967

ECJ Free movement of persons – migrant workers – insurance – benefits – aggregation and proportional calculation – calculation of a benefit payable under the legislation of a single member state by means of aggregation and proportional calculation – not permissible (EEC treaty, article 51; regulation no 3, articles 27 and 28). Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old age and death (pensions) insurance – pension rights relating to separate periods – absence of improper accumulation (EEC treaty, article 51; regulation no 3, articles 27 and 28). Free movement of persons – migrant workers – insurance – system provided for by regulation no 3 – retention of separate national systems and of separate claims – observance of this system by the competent institutions of the member states.

Citations:

C-1/67, [1967] EUECJ R-1/67

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131831

Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz v Joseph Welchner: ECJ 5 Dec 1967

ECJ 1. Free movement of persons – workers – social security – periods assimilated to insurance periods – reference to national law (regulation no 3, article 1(r)) 2. Free movement of persons – workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – application of German legislation – taking into account of ‘ substitute periods ‘ within the meaning of that legislation – German institutions not obliged to take into account a period completed under the legislation of another member state (regulation no 3, article 28, annex g) 1. In so far as it takes ‘ assimilated periods ‘ into account, regulation no 3 intends neither to modify nor supplement national law, provided that the latter observes the provisions of article 48 to 51 of the EEC treaty. In particular, regulation no 3 refers to the conditions under which national law will regard a given period as being equivalent to insurance periods properly so-called. 2. Article 28 of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers, together with annex g thereto, does not require the institutions of the federal republic of Germany to take into account a period completed under the legislation of another member state in determining whether ‘ substitute periods ‘ within the meaning of German legislation must be taken into account.

Citations:

C-14/67, R-14/67, [1967] EUECJ R-14/67

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131844

Steane and Another v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another: CA 19 Dec 1995

Attendance allowance could be granted to a care resident who didn’t apply via the Local Authority Social Services department.
Attendance allowance payable to elderly person on transfer of nursing home into the private sector.

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-1995, Ind Summary 08-Jan-1996

Statutes:

Social Security (Attendance Allowance)(No 2) Regulations 1975/598, National Assistance Act 1948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromSteane v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another HL 8-Aug-1996
Since no payments had been made by the Local Authority for care, a care home resident was entitled to claim Attendance Allowance.
Occupant of residential home paying charges himself may get attendance allowance. . .
See AlsoChief Adjudication Officer and Another v Steane and Another SSCS 24-Jul-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89520

Steane v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another: HL 8 Aug 1996

Since no payments had been made by the Local Authority for care, a care home resident was entitled to claim Attendance Allowance.
Occupant of residential home paying charges himself may get attendance allowance.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Oct-1996, Times 08-Aug-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1195

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSteane and Another v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another CA 19-Dec-1995
Attendance allowance could be granted to a care resident who didn’t apply via the Local Authority Social Services department.
Attendance allowance payable to elderly person on transfer of nursing home into the private sector. . .
See AlsoChief Adjudication Officer and Another v Steane and Another SSCS 24-Jul-1996
. .

Cited by:

CitedM, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89522

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security, Ex parte Britnell (Alan): HL 1991

The applicant claimed and was paid benefits. There was later determined to have been an overpayment. A sum was recovered by deductions, but then he was granted only supplementary allowance. No deductions could be made from that, but the respondent relied upon the transitional provisions in the regulations to continue to make deductions. The claimant asserted that the amendment to the Act brought about under the regulation was ultra vires.
Held: The alteration made was not so significant or radical as to make it ultra vires. Lord Keith of Kinkel/b>: ‘[A] power to modify the provisions of a statute should be narrowly and strictly construed, and that view is indeed a correct one.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakwood, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncy of Tullichettle

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 198, [1991] 2 All ER 726

Statutes:

Social Security Act 1986 53 89(1), Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayment and Recovery) Regulations 1987 20(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedMcKiernon v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 26-Oct-1989
A statute granting a power to be amended by a subordinate instrument can only do so by an express power: ‘Whether subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure, [subordinate legislation] is subject to much briefer, if any, examination . .

Cited by:

CitedOakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
CitedThe Public Law Project, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 13-Jul-2016
Proposed changes to the Legal Aid regulations were challenged as being invalid, for being discriminatory. If regulations are not authorised under statute, they will be invalid, even if they have been approved by resolutions of both Houses under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.222833

Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Barry: HL 21 Mar 1997

The House considered the need when assessing community care provision to include considerations of the cost and resources for care. The case concerned a question about the relevance of cost and arose in the context of a duty to make certain arrangements where a local authority is satisfied this is ‘necessary’ in order to meet the ‘needs’ of disabled persons.
Held: (by a majority) On the proper interpretation of the section the local authority is entitled to have regard to its resources when performing this duty. The local authority had merged the two stages into one by providing services in accordance with elaborate ‘eligibility criteria’. What was in issue was whether the authority could lawfully raise the eligibility criteria because of shortage of money. ‘Need’ within the meaning of section 2(1) of 1970 Act is a relative concept and that ‘needs for services cannot sensibly be assessed without having some regard to the cost of providing them. A person’s need for a particular type or level of service cannot be decided in a vacuum from which all considerations of cost have been expelled.’

Judges:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 09-Apr-1997, Times 21-Mar-1997, [1997] AC 584, [1997] UKHL 58, [1997] 2 WLR 459, [1997] 2 All ER 1, (1997) 9 Admin LR 209, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 40, (1997) 36 BMLR 92

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 2(1)

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc QBD 2-Aug-1996
Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case. . .

Cited by:

CitedT (a Minor), In Re 1997 HL 20-May-1998
The Act obliged a local education authority to provide education for children too ill to attend school. The claimant suffered from ME, and received only five hours support, which the authority proposed to reduce in order to save money. The parents . .
Appeal toRegina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc QBD 2-Aug-1996
Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case. . .
CitedRegina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
CitedSavva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 11-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights. . .
CitedMcDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 6-Jul-2011
The claimant, a former prima ballerina, had suffered injury as she grew old. She came to suffer a condition requiring her to urinate at several points during each night. The respondent had been providing a carer to stay with her each night to . .
CitedKM, 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 . .
CitedRobson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Salford City Council CA 20-Jan-2015
The appellants, all severely disabled appealed against the refusal of their judicial review of the substantial withdrawal by the Council of a service providing them with transport to local day care facilities. They said that the council had failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86701

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte M etc: CA 17 Feb 1997

The court recognised the potential role of local authorities under section 21(1)(a) in meeting the needs of those seeking asylum and otherwise, but having benefits withheld pending determination of their claims. Asylum seekers who had been excluded from the benefits system are to be supported by the local authority.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Waite, Henry LJJ

Citations:

Times 19-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 3095, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 85, (1998) 30 HLR 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSL 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.

Benefits, Local Government, Immigration

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86802

Regina v Richmond London Borough Council, Ex Parte Watson; Regina v Manchester City Council, Ex Parte Stennett; etc: CA 28 Sep 2000

Local Authorities who found themselves obliged to provide care for former mental patients were not free to charge for the services. The section imposing the obligation could not be looked at as a gateway provision before services were provided under other statutory provisions. The references by other sections to services provided under this section made that clear. The care was given by virtue of the councils’ obligations under the 1983 Act, not the National Assistance Act.

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1999, Times 17-Aug-2000, Gazette 28-Sep-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 239

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Mental Health Act 1983 3 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Richmond London Borough Council, Ex Parte Watson; Regina v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Ex Parte Armstrong etc Admn 15-Oct-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85459

Regina v Social Security Commissioner, Ex Parte Chamberlain: QBD 7 Jul 2000

On an application to review an earlier incapacity benefit decision, the adjudicating officer or tribunal must first decide if a material change of circumstances existed since the decision, or whether the decision was founded upon some mistake. Only then should he pass on to question whether the ‘all work’ test is satisfied. The distinction between the two stages is clear and fundamental. Only if either limb of the first test applied could the second arise.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 25, 171C

Cited by:

CitedWood v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 31-Jan-2003
The appellant suffered cerebral palsy. Following a review, he was awarded mobility allowance, and then later the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance for life. He applied for the care element also. The respondent refused the care . .
CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85561

Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha: CA 7 Sep 2000

The applicants were immigrants awaiting determination of their applications for exceptional leave to remain, and who came to suffer from serious illness. Each applied for and was refused assistance from their local authority.
Held: The refusals were unlawful. Where circumstances of need arose over and above needs arising from lack of accommodation and funds, then he qualified for assistance irrespective of his immigration status. That status was a matter to be assessed by the Secretary of State, and not by local authorities. The use of the word ‘solely’ in the new section 21(1A) left the local authority with a responsibility for those whose need for care and attention was attributable to a combination of factors, and not simply to destitution and its effects. If the applicant’s need for more care and attention was ‘to any extent made more acute by some circumstance other than the mere lack of accommodation and funds’ e.g. because she is old, ill or disabled, then she is not excluded by section 21(1A).

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

Gazette 07-Sep-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 2539, [2000] EWCA Civ 201, Times 18-Jul-2000

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Mani) v Lambeth London Borough Council, Regina (Tasci) v Enfield London Borough Council, Regina (J) v Same Admn 18-Apr-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers, but also had disabilities, and sought housing assistance from the local authorities. The authorities replied that they had no duty to provide housing because of the Immigration Act.
Held: The 1948 Act . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Mani) v London Borough of Lambeth CA 9-Jul-2003
Where a destitute and disabled asylum seeker had a clear need for care and attention, the local authority had a duty to provide it. The claimant was an asylum seeker, with impaired mobility and a history of mental halth difficulties. At first he was . .
CitedRegina (T) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department; similar CA 23-Sep-2003
The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading?
Held: No simple . .
CitedWestminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
CitedM v London Borough of Islington and Another CA 2-Apr-2004
The applicant asylum seeker had had her application refused, and was awaiting a removal order. She had a child and asked the authority to house her pending her removal.
Held: Provided she was not in breach of the removal order, the council had . .
CitedM, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85603

Partridge v Adjudication Officer Case: ECJ 2 Jul 1998

Attendance allowance payable in England was properly withdrawn after claimant left England to live in France permanently. Attendance allowance is in special category under the regulations.

Citations:

Times 02-Jul-1998, C-297/96, [1998] EUECJ C-297/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991, EC Treaty Art 177

Benefits, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84599

O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 23 May 1996

A condition on the making of a funeral grant that the deceased be buried in that country was unlawful. Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community precludes a rule of a Member State which makes grant of a payment to cover funeral expenses incurred by a migrant worker subject to the condition that burial or cremation take place within the territory of that Member State. Unless objectively justified and proportionate to the aim pursued, a provision of national law, even if applicable irrespective of nationality, must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory, and hence not complying with the equality of treatment prescribed by Article 7(2), if it is simply intrinsically liable to affect migrant workers more than national workers and if there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage. Firstly, as regards funeral expenses, although the costs he incurs will be of the same type as and of comparable amount to those incurred by a national worker, it is above all the migrant worker who may, on the death of a member of the family, arrange for burial in another Member State, in view of the links which the members of such a family generally maintain with their State of origin. Secondly, the refusal to grant the payment if the funeral takes place in another Member State cannot be justified by considerations of public health, or by considerations relating to the cost of funerals, since the cost of transporting the coffin to a place distant from the deceased’ s home is not covered in any event, or by the difficulty of checking the expenses incurred.

Citations:

Times 07-Jun-1996, C-237/94, [1996] All ER (EC) 541, [1996] ECR I-2617, [1996] EUECJ C-237/94

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

AppliedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carlos Bobezes CA 16-Feb-2005
The Regulations provided that income support was not payable for a dependent child for any period of four weeks or more where the child was outside Great Britain. The claimant, a Portuguese national had come to Great Britain but had been incapable . .
CitedCollins 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84430

Mulvey v Secretary of State for Social Security: HL 20 Mar 1997

The appellant had had repayable awards from the social fund and also income support benefit. Deductions were made from the benefit to repay the awards. Her estate was sequestrated. She argued that the awards should no longer be deducted.
Held: Deductions by way of recoupment for overpayments of benefit were correctly continued after bankruptcy.
Lord Jauncey said: ‘By no stretch of the imagination could the respondent’s exercise of his statutory right be described as diligence for the purpose of the law of Scotland’.
The rule at common law rule was also disapplied: ‘The deductions made by the respondent were not, as in the normal case of compensation in bankruptcy, a result of the bankruptcy, but were made in pursuance of a statutory scheme which was already in operation at the time of sequestration and with which the permanent trustee can have no concern. Prior to sequestration, the appellant had no right to receive by way of income support benefit more than her gross entitlement under deduction of such sum as had been notified to her by the respondent prior to payment of the award by the respondent. This was the result of the statutory scheme and she could not have demanded more.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Citations:

[1997] UKHL 10, 1997 SC (HL) 105

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 167(3), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 138(1)

Citing:

CitedFraser v Robertson 1881
A creditor in an obligation undertaken by a debtor prior to sequestration must, after sequestration, enforce that obligation against the estate vested in the trustee and can only seek a decree of constitution there anent against the debtor . .
CitedMacdonald’s Trustee v Macdonald 1938
So much income received by a debtor as exceeds his needs, as determined by the Sheriff, may require to be paid to the permanent trustee. The 1921 Act did not override . .
CitedBradley-Hole v Cusen CA 1953
The creditor was a tenant of rent-controlled premises who had been charged too much rent by his landlord. The bankrupt landlord’s trustee argued that the claim in respect of overpaid rent had been converted into a right to prove the debt in the . .
Appeal fromMulvey v Secretary of State for Social Security IHCS 24-Nov-1995
The claimant had first been granted a loan from the Social Fund. After her bankruptcy, the benefits loan was recoverable from benefits even after the bankruptcy if the loan was not proved in the bankruptcy. The right to recover by deduction was but . .

Cited by:

CitedSecretary 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.

Insolvency, Benefits, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84121

M (a Child by her Father and Litigation Friend B) v Secretary of State for Social Security: HL 5 Jul 2001

The applicant had been entitled to and received Disability Living Allowance for a fixed period. Her entitlement was due for review, but before that, the regulations were altered, and a new condition was imposed. That condition depended upon her unconditional right of residence in the UK, and she did not at first satisfy it. She later satisfied it, but claimed entitlement for the interim period. The issue was whether the transitional provisions of the amending regulations had the effect of continuing her entitlement by leaving in force the original regulations because her entitlement was then established. The court held that the regulations preserved her rights only for as long as the original fixed period applied. Thereafter she was to make a new claim, and that claim would be under the new rules.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Times 06-Jul-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1453, [2001] UKHL 35, [2001] 4 All ER 41, (2001) 61 BMLR 1

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996 No 30 12(3)

Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83251

Meyers v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 19 Jul 1995

EC directive on equal rights requires single parents to set off child care costs.
A social security benefit designed to keep low income workers in employment or to encourage them into employment was within the scope of Directive 76/207/EC, not only as being directly related to access to employment, but also on the basis that the claimants’ working conditions were affected. The Court said that: ‘To confine the latter concept solely to those working conditions which are set out in the contract of employment or applied by the employer in respect of a worker’s employment would remove situations directly covered by an employment relationship from the scope of the directive.’
A benefit such as family credit, which may be paid to a person in Great Britain if his income is no higher than a given ceiling, if he, or if he is a member of a couple, he or the other member of the couple, is engaged in remunerative work and he or the other member of the couple is responsible for a child or another member of the same household, and which performs the dual function of keeping poorly paid workers in employment and of meeting family expenses, has by virtue of its first function an objective which brings it within the scope of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
The concept of access to employment referred to in Article 3 of the directive must not be understood as relating solely to the conditions existing before an employment relationship is created. The prospect of receiving family credit if he accepts low-paid work encourages an unemployed worker to accept such work, with the result that the benefit is related to considerations governing access to employment. Furthermore, compliance with the fundamental principle of equal treatment presupposes that a benefit such as family credit, which is necessarily linked to an employment relationship, constitutes a working condition within the meaning of Article 5 of the directive.

Citations:

Times 19-Jul-1995, Ind Summary 11-Sep-1995, C-116/94, [1995] EUECJ C-116/94, [1995] ECR I-2131

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment etc

Cited by:

CitedX v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another SC 12-Dec-2012
The appellant was disabled, had legal qualifications, and worked with the respondent as a volunteer. She had sought assistance under the Disability Discrimination Act, now the 2012 Act, saying that she counted as a worker. The tribunal and CA had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83675

Griffiths and Others v British Coal Corporation and Another: CA 27 Feb 2001

The interest payable on an award of damages for past loss of earnings for personal injury was liable to be subject to the deduction rules applying in respect of benefits paid. Such interest fell within the definition of ‘compensation for earnings lost’ as defined in the Act.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 336

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 Sch 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81044

Elsen v Bundes-Versicherungsanstalt Fur Angestellte: ECJ 14 Feb 2001

When calculating an old age pension, a member state was wrong to exclude a period in which the applicant had cared for her child in another member state. She was a frontier worker, and the child had been born in the home country. To allow periods in which she had cared for the child in a neighbouring state to be excluded when calculating her pension entitlement would discourage freedom of movement of workers, and was not to be permitted

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2001, C-135/99

Benefits, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80303

Chief Adjudication Officer and Another v Foster: HL 7 Apr 1993

The Social Security Commissioners have the jurisdiction and power to decide if a Regulation is ultra vires the powers under which it purports to have been made.
Lord Bridge said of the Social Security Commissioners: ‘My conclusion is that the commissioners have undoubted jurisdiction to determine any challenge to the vires of a provision in regulations made by the Secretary of State as being beyond the scope of the enabling power whenever it is necessary to do so in determining whether a decision under appeal was erroneous in point of law. I am pleased to reach that conclusion for two reasons First, it avoids a cumbrous duplicity of proceedings which could only add to the already overburdened list of applications for judicial review awaiting determination by the Divisional Court. Second, it is, in my view, highly desirable that when the Court of Appeal, or indeed your Lordships House, are called upon to determine an issue of the kind in question they should have the benefit of the views upon it of one or more of the commissioners who have great expertise in this somewhat esoteric area of the law’.

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

Gazette 07-Apr-1993, [1993] AC 754, [1993] 2 WLR 292, [1993] 1 All ER 705

Statutes:

Social Security Act 1975 22(4)

Cited by:

CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Administrative

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79024

Chief Adjudication Officer v Stafford and Banks: HL 29 Jun 2001

The appellant first applied for income support and then for job seeker’s allowance in respect of periods between terms. He was employed as a classroom assistant in a school, and was not paid outside term. He sought but could not obtain work. He was denied benefits. He claimed that when averaged over the year including holidays.
Held: With some reluctance, since the school year imposed a recognisable cycle, the rules which required holiday periods to be disallowed when calculating the average must be applied, which defeated his claim for benefits.

Citations:

Times 29-Jun-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001, [2001] UKHL 33, [2001] 1 WLR 1411

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967) 5(3B), Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (1996 No 207) 51(2)(c)

Citing:

Appeal fromChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford; Same v Banks CA 27-Oct-1999
The provisions for requiring the averaging of pay over entire cycles of work were applied to ensure that workers who worked part time for educational establishments and who were not paid when the schools were closed, were not able to receive . .

Cited by:

Appealed toChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford; Same v Banks CA 27-Oct-1999
The provisions for requiring the averaging of pay over entire cycles of work were applied to ensure that workers who worked part time for educational establishments and who were not paid when the schools were closed, were not able to receive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79047

Chief Adjudication Officer and Another v Quinn (For Jane Harris) and Another: HL 9 Oct 1996

LT Applicable amount – local authority accommodation leased to voluntary organisations – whether claimants are ‘persons in residential accommodation’ or are living in ‘residential care homes’

Judges:

Lord Keith, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Gazette 09-Oct-1996, Times 08-Aug-1996, [1996] UKSSCSC CIS – 298 – 1992, [1996] 1 WLR 1184, CIS/641/1992, CIS/298/1992

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 26

Cited by:

CitedM, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79032

Chief Adjudication Officer v Wolke; Remelien v Secretary of State for Social Security: HL 13 Nov 1997

The claimant was an EC national who had become resident here but was not seeking work, since she cared for her children. The Secretary of State said that since she was not seeking work, she was not entitled to remain and should make arrangements to leave the UK.
Held: The letter asking a claimant to make arrangements to return to his or her own European state was not sufficient of itself to remove his right to claim benefits.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1997, Times 01-Dec-1997, [1997] UKHL 50, [1998] 1 All ER 129, [1997] 1 WLR 1640, [1998] 1 FLR 444, [1998] 1 FCR 119, [1998] Fam Law 193

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 21(3)(b), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 175, Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994

Citing:

CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen ECJ 26-Feb-1991
ECJ The free movement of workers enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty entails the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the . .
CitedRegina v Stanislaus Pieck ECJ 3-Jul-1980
Any formality for the purpose of granting leave, coupled with a passport or an identity card check at the frontier, was contrary to article 3(2) of Directive 68/360 E.E.C. which prohibited Member States from demanding an entry visa or equivalent . .
CitedCentre Public D’Aide Sociale De Courcelles v Lebon ECJ 18-Jun-1987
A right to equal treatment with regard to social and tax advantages accorded by article 7(2) of Regulation No. 1612/68 E.E.C. applied only to workers and not to nationals of Member States who move in search of employment. The latter were entitled . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Vitale; Regina v Same Ex Parte Do Amaral QBD 18-Apr-1995
A European Union citizen’s right to stay in UK is not unqualified, he must expect to have to seek or find work. The decision of the Home Secretary could be judicially reviewed and ‘in the course of his appeal before the Social Security Appeal . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Barnet v Ismail and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
The court considered the entitlement to housing support of nationals of other EEA states receiving Income Support here despite their being still subject to immigration control.
Held: Such EEA nationals were eligible for housing benefit. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79052

Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer: HL 17 May 1996

Severe disability premium not available to adult claimant residing with parents.

Citations:

Gazette 17-May-1996, Times 17-May-1996

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1867) Sch2 13(2)(a

Citing:

Appeal fromBate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another CA 2-Dec-1994
A disabled adult living with her parents was still entitled to receive the severe disability premium. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toBate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another CA 2-Dec-1994
A disabled adult living with her parents was still entitled to receive the severe disability premium. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78281

CG 3844/2006: SSC 2006

The tribunal considered whether an email asking for ‘information on whatever benefits I am entitled to’ amounted to a ‘claim’ for benefits.
Held: Commissioner Turnbull said: ‘In my judgment, and this is the crux of the case, the terms of the e-mail sent in September 2001 cannot sensibly be read as making a claim for benefit. The statement that the Claimant [in that email] ‘would like information on whatever benefits I am entitled to’ was in my judgment no more than a request for information as to what benefits the Claimant was entitled to. It does not display an intention to claim benefits generally, still less any particular benefit. (If, for example, there had been some disadvantage to the Claimant in claiming benefits in England, the Claimant would have been perfectly entitled to say that she had not actually done so, but had merely asked for information as to what benefits she was entitled to).’

Judges:

Turnbull Comm

Citations:

Unreported 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedR(S) 1/63 SSC 1963
The claimant had written to make a claim under the Regulations: ‘I have received a letter about my National Insurance card. My card was lasted stamped by an employer on 4 July. I have not been employed since that date. Owing to illness I now have a . .

Cited by:

CitedNovitskaya v London Borough of Brent and Another CA 1-Dec-2009
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.

Benefits

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.551001

KT and SH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) (Personal Independence Payment – Daily Living Activities): UTAA 21 Aug 2020

The claimants each need to remove their hearing aids to take a shower and to take a bath. Each cannot without the aids hear a typical fire alarm or smoke alarm while taking a bath or shower with the door closed. It was common ground that having to leave the door open would not be washing and bathing ‘to an acceptable standard’, as required by regulation 4(2A)(b) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.
Held: (1) In light of the decision of a three-judge panel in RJ, CMcL and CS [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC), the First-tier Tribunal in each case erred in law in its consideration of whether the claimant can wash and bathe ‘safely’, as required by regulation 4(2A)(a) and as defined by regulation 4(4)(a). (2) There should not be room for different First-tier Tribunal panels to make different decisions as to whether there is a risk that cannot reasonably or sensibly be ignored, where the differences between the panels’ decisions arise not from differences in claimants’ needs but from different assessments of the same objective evidence of risk.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 252 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.656577

Regina (on the application of Waite) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: CA 2002

As to the distribution of benefits, ‘ . . the distribution of State benefit lies peculiarly within the constitutional responsibility of elected Government’.

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 482

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Isle of Anglesey County Council v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Oct-2003
The claimant council sought re-imbursement from the Secretary of the excess housing benefit payments it had made to claimants. The system expected the Council to have made referrals of high rents to rent officers. The respondent had decided that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187290

Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship): ECJ 30 Sep 2010

ECJ Opinion – Articles 18, 20 and 21 TFEU – Fundamental rights as general principles of European Union law – Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – European citizenship – Unemployment benefits – Child with the nationality of a Member State – Right of residence of parents who are third country nationals – Hindering effects of national measures – Reverse discrimination – Relationship between the European Convention of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union – Standards of fundamental rights protection.

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

C-34/09, [2010] EUECJ C-34/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

TFEU 18 20, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 6

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionRuiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .
CitedSanade and Others (British Children – Zambrano – Dereci) UTIAC 7-Feb-2012
Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 provides that where a person is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more, he must be deported unless he falls within one of the statutory exceptions.
Article 8 provides one such exception but there is . .
CitedAhmed (Amos; Zambrano; Reg 15A, (C) 2006 EEA Regs) Pakistan (Rev 1) UTIAC 28-Feb-2013
UTIAC 1. The spouse of an EEA national/Union citizen does not acquire a retained right of residence upon divorce unless the EEA national was in the United Kingdom and exercising Treaty rights at the date of the . .
CitedMA and SM (Zambrano : EU Children Outside EU) Iran UTIAC 19-Jul-2013
UTIAC (1) In EU law terms there is no reason why the decision in Zambrano could not in principle be relied upon by the parent, or other primary carer, of a minor EU national living outside the EU as long as it is . .
CitedAyinde and Thinjom (Carers – Reg15A – Zambrano) UTIAC 13-Aug-2015
UTIAC (i) The deprivation of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizens identified in the decision in Zambrano [2011] EUECJ C-34/09 is limited to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Benefits

Leading Case

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.425269

HC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 Nov 2017

This appeal concerns the rights of so-called ‘Zambrano carers’ and their children to financial support from the state. The appellant, an Algerian national married and had children here, but was refused housing after the break up the marriage. HC challenged the legality of the Regulations, contending that the denial of mainstream welfare and housing provision to a Zambrano carer and her child was unlawful, because it amounted to unlawful discrimination under article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and/or under article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Held: The appeal failed. The European court had upheld such rights to the extent that they put at risk the enjoyment by the carer of rights under EU law. HC now argued that in EU law, once a right of residence is established, the Zambrano carer was automatically entitled to the same social security assistance as nationals of the host state. In contrast the rights asserted here were ones under domestic law.
Otherwise: Sanneh v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 73, (2018) 21 CCL Rep 127, [2017] 3 WLR 1486, [2018] 2 CMLR 11, [2018] 2 All ER 1, [2018] HLR 6, [2017] WLR(D) 761, [2019] AC 845, UKSC 2015/0215

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 Jun 21 pm Vide, SC 2017 Jun 22 am Video

Statutes:

Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006, European Convention of Human Rights, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At AdmnSanneh, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Apr-2012
Challenge to payment of Zambrano Income Support . .
CitedRuiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 8-Mar-2011
ECJ Citizenship of the Union – Article 20 TFEU – Grant of right of residence under European Union law to a minor child on the territory of the Member State of which that child is a national, irrespective of the . .
CitedDereci and Others (European Citizenship) ECJ 15-Nov-2011
ECJ Grand Chamber – Citizenship of the Union – Right of residence of nationals of third countries who are family members of Union citizens – Refusal based on the citizen’s failure to exercise the right to freedom . .
CitedDH (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Dec-2012
Elias LJ said: ‘The right of residence is a right to reside in the territory of the EU. It is not a right to any particular quality of life or to any particular standard of living. Accordingly, there is no impediment to exercising the right to . .
Appeal fromSanneh and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 10-Feb-2015
The appeals concerned the question of whether ‘Zambrano carers’, who are non-EU citizens responsible for the care of an EU citizen child, are entitled to social assistance (that is, non-contributory welfare benefits) on the same basis as EU citizens . .
CitedSecretary Of State For The Home Department v CS (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union) ECJ 13-Sep-2016
The Court of Justice held: ‘that there are very specific situations in which, despite the fact that the secondary law on the right of residence of third-country nationals does not apply and the Union citizen concerned has not made use of his freedom . .
CitedRendon Marin (Judgment : Citizenship Of The Union) ECJ 13-Sep-2016
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 and 21 TFEU – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of a third-country national with a criminal record to reside in a Member . .
CitedAgyarko and Ikuga, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 22-Feb-2017
Applications were made by foreign nationals, residing unlawfully in the UK, for leave to remain as the partners of British citizens with whom they had formed relationships during their unlawful residence, relying primarily on the duty imposed on the . .

Cited by:

CitedStott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
Extended Determinate Sentence created Other Status
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .
CitedPatel v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Dec-2019
Zambrano states that a non-member state national (‘TCN’) parent of an EU citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to
reside in the EU. This is solely to avoid the EU citizen child being deprived of the substance of their Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.599382

The Queen v The Inhabitants of Whissendine: 1842

Pauper; being settled by apprenticeship in M., gained a subsequent settlement in W. by residing on an estate there, but, becoming lunatic while he continued to reside on the same estate, he was, after the passing of stat. 4 and 6 W. 4, c. 76, removed by his relations to the county lunatic asylum, more than ten miles from W., and was for several years maintained in that asylum, partly by his relatives, partly by the rents of his said estate, until, those resources proving inadequate, he was taken from the asylum and brought to W. for one night, and was then removed as a pauper lunatic to the same asylum, by warrant under stat. 9 G. 4, c. 40, s. 38. Held, that, an order of justices on the overseers of W., under the last-mentioned clause, for the payment of a weekly sum for his maintenance in the asylum, was wrong, the pauper having, under stat. 4 and 5 W, 4, c. 76, s. 68, lost his settlement in W. by ceasing to inhabit.

Citations:

[1842] EngR 86, (1842) 2 QB 450, (1842) 114 ER 178

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.307041

The Queen v The Inhabitants Of Wellington: 19 Nov 1845

Where the parish applying to remove a pauper proves before the justices a former removal, acquiesced in, to the parish now about to be charged, and produces the order of removal, such order, or a copy, must be sent to the latter parish, under stat. 4: and 5 W. 4, c. 76, s 79.
On appeal against an order of justices, removing James Hindley and his wife and two children from the parish of Wellington in Shropshire, to the parish, in the borough of Wslsall, Staffordshire, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a special case.

Citations:

[1845] EngR 1275, (1845) 11 QB 65, (1845) 116 ER 400

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.304417

Cis/1672/96: SSC 17 Jun 1998

Where claimant has no address, he may be entitled to basic job-seekers personal allowance but not to the premiums which accompany accommodation. Claimant living in car not adapted for sleeping or cooking.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jun-1998

Benefits

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79138

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 a highly technical provision which for the purposes of immigration control introduces into the legislative scheme a necessary fiction as to what constitutes entry to the UK, but talks about entry, not arrival. It could not therefore be used as the definition to be applied under the Regulations. The provision was ambiguous. A strict interpretation would often result in unfairness, as in this case. Read properly the claims should have been allowed.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 54

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987/1967), Immigration Act 1971 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedKola and Mirzajani v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-May-2004
. .
Appeal fromKola and Mirzajani v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-May-2004
. .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedShire v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 13-Oct-2003
The claimant, a Somali woman, had arrived at Gatwick Airport from Yemen at 10.30 pm on 29 August 1999 and not claimed asylum until 31 August (the intervening day being a bank holiday). Her reason for not claiming at Gatwick was that she was . .
CitedRegina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
CitedSzoma 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.261603

Shackell v United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Apr 2000

The court held inadmissible a claim by an unmarried woman to widow’s benefit. The parties having chosen not to marry, they could not complain of not having the legal benefits of a marriage. The promotion of marriage by way of limited benefits for surviving spouses could not be said to exceed the margin of appreciation afforded to the Government: ‘The court accepts that there may well not be an increased social acceptance of stable personal relationships outside the traditional notion of marriage. However, marriage remains an institution which is widely accepted as conferring a particular status on those who enter it.’

Citations:

45851/99

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
CitedRodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Family, Benefits

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244727

MS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA): UTAA 22 Jul 2020

A non-European Economic Area national formerly married to an European Economic Area national, who has the right of permanent residence, may rely on that right and is not required to meet the conditions applicable to a ‘family member who has retained the right of residence’ in regulation 10 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, such as holding worker status.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 235 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, European

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.656571

CSB/1246/1986: 1986

A benefit claimant’s duty is to comply with the instructions in the order book. A disclosure which would be thought necessary only by a literal-minded pedant need not be made, but the safest course is to resolve doubts in favour of disclosure.

Citations:

Unreported 1986

Cited by:

CitedHinchy 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: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223214

MP, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: CA 3 Dec 2020

Challenge to method of imposition of fees for health care for overseas visitor.
Held: No legitimate expectation of consultation had been created.

Judges:

Lord Justice Newey

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1634

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Benefits, Administrative

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.656655

Irving v Minister of Pensions: SCS 1945

Appeals were against decisions of Pensions Appeal Tribunals relating to claims for pensions in respect of death or disablement by war injuries. Article 4(1) of the Royal Warrant concerning Retired Pay, Pensions, etc dated December 1943 (Cmd 6489) provided that in no case was there to be an onus on any claimant to prove that the disablement or death of a member of the military forces was attributable to or aggravated by war service and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt should be given to the claimant: ‘In every issue of disputed facts between two parties, the onus of proof must inevitably be either on the one hand or the other, and the result of the provisions I have quoted is that the onus of proof is on the Minister.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Cooper

Citations:

1945 SC 31

Cited by:

CitedKerr 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Evidence, Benefits

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.196892

Cartlidge v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 1986

The section refers to ‘an employed earner who has lost employment as an employed earner by reason of a stoppage of work . .’ An employed earner can ‘lose his employment’ temporarily or permanently.

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 QB 360

Statutes:

National Insurance Act 1965 27(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRCI Europe Ltd v Kate Woods (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 16-Dec-2003
The company made payments to a former director in return for a severance agreement which restricted his future business activities.
Held: Despite the fact that all payments were made only after his employment had been terminated, they remained . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190495

Regina v Westminster City Council and others ex parte M, P, A and X: CA 1997

Destitute asylum-seekers could derive benefit from section 21.
Held: ‘The destitute condition to which asylum-seekers can be reduced as a result of the 1996 Act coupled with the period of time which, despite the Secretary of State’s best efforts, elapses before their applications are disposed of means inevitably that they can fall within a class who local authorities can properly regard as being persons whose needs they have a responsibility to meet by the provision of accommodation under section 21(1)(a).’ The National Assistance Act 1998 was ‘a prime example of an Act which is ‘always speaking’ and so should be construed ‘on a construction, that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the Act was initially framed”

Judges:

Woolf MR

Citations:

[1997] 1 CCLR 85, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (T) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department; similar CA 23-Sep-2003
The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading?
Held: No simple . .
CitedVictor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another CA 8-Mar-2000
A teletext page can be a document for gaming licensing purposes. A bookmaker sought to advertise his services via a teletext page. His services were not licensed in this country, but the advertisements were. It was held that despite the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186462

Coupland v Arabian Gulf Oil Co: QBD 1983

The plaintiff employee, injured whilst working for the defendant in Libya, sued in contract and tort. The judge held that Libyan law was the proper law of the contract, but that this was of no relevance to the claim in tort which could proceed here if the plaintiff could satisfy the double actionability rule. The defendant argued that the English double actionability rule should not be applied because there was a Libyan contract.
Hodgson J said: ‘It is clear that the ordinary rule in tort is that the law of the place where the action is being brought – the lex fori – is the law to be applied. To find an exception to that rule one has to find as issue, which is decided differently by the two jurisprudences, which is capable of being segregated and which can then be decided by an application of what, in effect by the back door, is the proper law of that issue. But before one can do that one has to have some substantial difference between the two systems of law. In this case (as I have demonstrated) the only possible candidate for segregation would be the rule in Libyan law that social security benefits are not deductible from an award of general damages. But that contention is not advanced by Mr Hartley Booth for the plaintiff (and properly so it seems to me), for that rule is, in my judgment, a rule for the quantification of damage and not a rule dealing with a head of damage. And if it is a rule dealing with the quantification of damage, then it is for the law of this country to prevail.’

Judges:

Hodgson J

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 1136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
CitedErnst Kastner v Marc Jason, Davis Sherman, Brigitte Sherman CA 2-Dec-2004
The parties had agreed that their dispute should be resolved before the Jewish Beth Din according to Jewish substantive and procedural law. K was granted an interim freezing order. The defendant sold the asset, and K sought to assert a charge.
CitedCox v Ergo Versicherung Ag SC 2-Apr-2014
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, International, Damages

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180552

NSP v Stoke-On-Trent City Council and AT (HB): UTAA 3 Nov 2020

Housing Benefit – Recovery of overpayments-Whether a claimant is automatically a respondent to an appeal by a landlord against a decision to recover an overpayment. Housing Benefit – Recovery of overpayments – Circumstances in which an overpayment of HB is recoverable from someone other than the person to whom the original payment was made. Housing Benefit – Recovery of overpayments – Whether the right of appeal granted to a person from whom an overpayment of HB has been determined to be recoverable is limited in scope – R(H) 3/04 and R(H) 6/06 followed. Tribunal procedure and practice (including Upper Tribunal)-Evidence-Whether the First-tier Tribunal has power to exclude relevant evidence that is confidential to a non-party.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 311 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.656590

Wadey v Surrey County Council: CA 8 Jan 1999

The effect of benefits should be disregarded when calculating interest payable on past loss of earnings damages. The new legislation did not restore the common law position, but excluded benefits from not only the basic calculations, but the interest also.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1999, Gazette 27-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, Social Security Administration Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Benefits, Damages

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.90222

Regina v Stratford-Upon-Avon Council Housing Benefit Review Board and Another ex parte White: CA 23 Apr 1998

Genuine but voluntary poverty adopted as part of religious discipline and mode of life did not disentitle the claimant from applying for housing benefit.

Citations:

Times 23-Apr-1998, Gazette 13-May-1998

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (No 1971) 7(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88126

Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Others: CA 9 Sep 1998

The provision by Local Authorities of assistance to destitute asylum seekers had to be by direct help and not by way of cash or cash substitutes (vouchers).

Citations:

Times 09-Sep-1998

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Health Ex Parte Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Others QBD 31-Jul-1997
Provision to asylum seekers denied other benefits of board and lodging must be in kind and not in cash . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87729

Regina v Adjudication Officer Ex Parte B: CA 23 Dec 1998

Disability Living Allowance was among the benefits now disallowed to asylum seekers. A claim on renewal of the benefit application was debarred by regulations coming into force between the first and renewal applications.

Citations:

Times 23-Dec-1998

Statutes:

Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996 No 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.86035

Regina v Powys County Council, Ex Parte Hambidge (No 2): CA 16 Mar 2000

Where a local authority raised the care charges for facilities and services provided to disabled people charging different rates according to the benefits received, and where some benefits were received according to the level of disability, that differentiation did not amount to disability discrimination. The differences arose form the different levels of benefits paid to those asking for these services.

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 20, National Health Service Community Care Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Powys County Council, ex parte Jenny Diane Hambidge Admn 28-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Benefits, Local Government, Discrimination

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85450

Regina v Housing Benefit Review Board of Swale Borough Council ex parte Simon Stuart Marchant: CA 17 Nov 1999

A party in a separated couple where primary residence was with the other party, had staying contact, but the child benefit remained unapportioned. That party was not able to claim housing benefit which would reflect his need for larger accommodation to facilitate that staying contact. The decision was an administrative exercise as to whether the child was ‘normally living’ with him.

Citations:

Times 17-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 137

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Housing Benefit Review Board of Swale Borough Council ex parte Simon Stuart Marchant Admn 17-Dec-1998
Where children of a broken marriage split their time equally between both parents, but only one parent received all the Child Benefit, the local authority was entitled to set allowance for size of house supported by housing benefit on the same . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina v Housing Benefit Review Board of Swale Borough Council ex parte Simon Stuart Marchant Admn 17-Dec-1998
Where children of a broken marriage split their time equally between both parents, but only one parent received all the Child Benefit, the local authority was entitled to set allowance for size of house supported by housing benefit on the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Child Support

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85578

R v Adjudication Officer Ex P B: CA 27 Jan 1999

Disability Living Allowance was among the benefits now disallowed to asylum seekers. A claim on renewal of the benefit application was debarred by regulations coming into force between the first and renewal applications.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996 No 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85107

Regina v Adjudication Officer, Ex P Velasquez: CA 30 Apr 1999

The transitional provisions preserving existing rights to child benefit, applied only to entitlements in place at the time, and not to those who had a right to apply and had applied, but whose applications had not been determined.

Citations:

Times 30-Apr-1999

Statutes:

Child Benefit (General) Regulations 1976 (1976 No 965) 124B(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85108

Regina v Adjudication Officer, Ex P Velasquez: CA 28 Apr 1999

The transitional provisions preserving existing rights to child benefit, applied only to entitlements in place at the time, and not to those who had a right to apply and had applied, but whose applications had not been determined.

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-1999

Statutes:

Child Benefit (General) Regulations 1976 (1976 No 965) 124B(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85109

O’Connor v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another: CA 11 Mar 1999

Regulations providing that a student stayed such until he concluded, or was dismissed from a course, were deeming provisions, and a student taking a year out after failing his exams, remained a student and was unable to claim benefits by way of income support. Article 2 did not require the state to subsidise a student in excercising his right to take up the education it offered.

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] ELR 209

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDouglas v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The applicant had sought a student loan to support his studies as a mature student. It was refused because he would be over 55 at the date of the commencement of the course. He claimed this was discriminatory.
Held: The Convention required the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Education, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84421

Nabadda and Others v Westminster City Council; Gomilsek v Haringey London Borough Council: CA 24 Feb 2000

Swedish students on vocational courses in the UK had received loans from their home country, but were denied the grants towards their course fees which were made to English students. They claimed race discrimination. Although the withholding of grants was an indirect discrimination, it fell outside the Act and was not actionable because the acts of discrimination were done in pursuance of an enactment or statutory instrument. It was wrong to try to use the Race Relations Act to try to give effect to unrelated European legislation.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Times 15-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 41(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Benefits, European

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84152

Megarry v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 12 Nov 1999

The claimant having a high IQ along with autism did not prevent a claim that he suffered a ‘severe impairment of intelligence’ and so disentitle him to the higher rate of mobility under the Disability Living Allowance regulations. Autism could constitute an arrest of development, and also severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1999, Times 12-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 73(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83604

Chief Adjudication Officer v Stafford; Same v Banks: CA 27 Oct 1999

The provisions for requiring the averaging of pay over entire cycles of work were applied to ensure that workers who worked part time for educational establishments and who were not paid when the schools were closed, were not able to receive benefits for the weeks when they were not paid because of the overall average level of earnings.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 09-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967) 5(3B), Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (1996 No 207) 51(2)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford and Banks HL 29-Jun-2001
The appellant first applied for income support and then for job seeker’s allowance in respect of periods between terms. He was employed as a classroom assistant in a school, and was not paid outside term. He sought but could not obtain work. He was . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford and Banks HL 29-Jun-2001
The appellant first applied for income support and then for job seeker’s allowance in respect of periods between terms. He was employed as a classroom assistant in a school, and was not paid outside term. He sought but could not obtain work. He was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79048

Chief Adjudication Officer and Another v Rhodes: CA 25 Aug 1998

In order to establish a right to industrial injuries benefit a claimant had to establish both that the injury arose out of the employment and also that it arose ‘in the course of’ the employment. Worker assaulted whilst off sick was unable to claim.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Sep-1998, Times 25-Aug-1998

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 94(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79035