Category: Benefits

Stephenson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Stockton on Tees Borough Council: CA 26 Jul 2005

The disabled applicant received assistance from her daughter who had given up work to care for her, and whom she paid andpound;45.00 a week. The council applied their policy whch disallowed a deduction from her income of that sum.
Held: The council had treated policy as a rule, which it was not. The council could lawfully apply that policy but had to give consideration to whether the particular situation required it to be departed from. The council had already allowed exceptions for cases where cultural issues arose. The payments made were genuine even though small. The policy was founded on an assumption that the services provided were essentially voluntary. They were not.

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Wall LJ, Richards J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 960, Times 26-Jul-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Stephenson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council Admn 12-Oct-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229009

B v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 20 Jul 2005

The Secretary of State sought recovery of overpayment of benefits from an adult with a mental capacity described as below borderline.
Held: The claimant had severe learning disabilities, but nobody had been appointed to handle her affairs. She had been receiving benefits for herself and her children, but her children were then removed from her care. She did not appreciate the need to inform the respondent, but the department claimed that the liability for non-disclosure was strict. There was a lacuna exposed in the secretary’s powers to mitigate the consequences in such exceptional circumstances, but the claimant’s appeal failed.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Sedley LJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 929, Times 16-Sep-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228917

Parry v Halton Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 20 Jun 2005

Judges:

Field J, Rose LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1486 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 111A(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Not Approved – Mote v Regina CACD 21-Dec-2007
The defendant appealed his convictions for offences relating to the claiming of benefits, saying that he was immune from prosecution as a member of the European Parliament, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on other charges. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Crime

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228902

Ford, Regina (on the Application Of) v Inland Revenue: Admn 19 May 2005

Payment of child benefit where parents shared care.
Held: Where there was morethan one child, HMRC has a discretion to decide who should have it, without any statutory test (Sched 10, para 5 of the 1992 Act), and may, therefore, allocate the benefit for one child to one household and for another child to the other.

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1109 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 141

Cited by:

Cited – Humphreys v Revenue and Customs SC 16-May-2012
Separated parents shared the care of their child. The father complained that all the Child Tax Credit was given to the mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the rule does happen to be indirectly discriminatory against fathers, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Children

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226278

Dodl and Oberhollenzer (Social Security For Migrant Workers): ECJ 7 Jun 2005

ECJ Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72 – Family benefits – Child-raising allowance – Entitlement to benefits of the same kind in the Member State of employment and the Member State of residence.
Grand Chamber – The claim related to Austrian women working in Austria but living in Germany with their German husbands who worked in Germany. They were on unpaid maternity leave and the issue was whether Germany or Austria was responsible for paying family benefits.
Held: ‘a person has the status of an ’employed person’ within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71 where he is covered, even if only in respect of a single risk, on a compulsory or optional basis, by a general or special social security scheme mentioned in article 1(a) of that Regulation, irrespective of the existence of an employment relationship.’

Citations:

[2005] ECR I-5065, [2005] EUECJ C-543/03

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: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226013

(Un-named) (Housing Benefit): SSCS 20 Apr 2005

The issue in this case is whether the value of the claimant’s interest in the home that she previously shared with her partner may be disregarded under paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 5 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987.

Citations:

[2005] UKSSCSC CH – 117 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225970

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v W: CA 18 May 2005

The claimant had been married with children. Her husband was accused of abuse of the children, and bailed to live away from home, and then convicted and imprisoned. The claimant applied for income support on the basis that she had been abandoned within the regulations. The Secretary of State appealed a finding that she had been.
Held: The meaning of ‘abandoned’ in benefits law is to be taken to be the same as ‘desertion’ in matrimonial law. The husband would be deemed to be in desertion, and the benefits were payable accordingly.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 570, Times 11-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefit Act 1992 12494), Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 17(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sickert v Sickert 1899
The court discussed the doctrine of constructive desertion in family law: ‘In most cases of desertion the guilty party actually leaves the other but it is not always or necessarily the guilty party who leaves the matrimonial home. In my opinion, the . .
Cited – Griffiths v Griffiths CA 1964
The test for whether there had been constructive desertion was: ‘Was the husband guilty of such grave and weighty misconduct that he must have known that his wife, if she acted like any reasonable woman in her position, would in all probability . .
Cited – Ingram v Ingram 1956
The wife had been convicted of treason, and imprisoned. The husband claimed constructive desertion:
Held: A marriage partner’s criminal conduct can amount to constructive desertion if that conduct ‘strikes at the roots of the matrimonial . .
Cited – Lang v Lang PC 1955
It is the intention of the deserting party which establishes desertion, and that the intention permanently to end a relationship can be readily inferred. Where a husband’s conduct towards his wife was such that a reasonable man would know, and that . .
Cited – Beeken v Beeken 1948
The separation element in desertion may result from a period of compulsory detention. . .
Cited – Sickert v Sickert 1899
The court discussed the doctrine of constructive desertion in family law: ‘In most cases of desertion the guilty party actually leaves the other but it is not always or necessarily the guilty party who leaves the matrimonial home. In my opinion, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224946

Keller (Social Security For Migrant Workers): ECJ 12 Apr 2005

ECJ Social security – Articles 3 and 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 – Article 22 of Regulation No 574/72 – Hospital treatment in a Member State other than the competent Member State – Need for vital urgent treatment – Transfer of the insured person to a hospital institution in a non-member country – Scope of forms E 111 and E 112

Citations:

C-145/03, [2005] EUECJ C-145/03

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224103

Department for Works and Pensions v Richards; Regina v Richards (Michael): CACD 3 Mar 2005

After conviction for benefits fraud, the defendant appealed a confiscation order, saying that had he made appropriate claims for state benefirs under other heads, the loss to the state would have been much less (andpound;3000 not andpound;19,000).
Held: The defendant was unable to set off against the amount ordered to be paid any sum which he might have recovered by way of working family tax credit had he declared his earnings. The court was not under a duty to inquire as to the extent to which the defendant’s false claim was only a notional benefit.

Judges:

Rose LJ, David Steel, Hallett JJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 491, Times 11-Mar-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Currey CACD 1995
The defendant was one of four conspirators who had between them obtained andpound;220,000 by fraud. There was no evidence before the trial judge to enable him to determine how the proceeds had been divided between the conspirators or, it seems, to . .
Cited – Regina v May; Regina v Bravard; Regina v Stapleton CACD 28-Jan-2005
The defendants had created limited companies for the sole purpose of making fraudulent reclaims of VAT. They appealed confiscation orders which attributed to each of them the whole sum received by the companies, rather than a proportionate part.
Cited – Regina v Smith (David) CACD 2002
When considering the making of a confiscation order, the court was not to make any allowance for the fact that the property had been destroyed. . .
Cited – Regina v Patel CACD 2000
The defendent pleaded guilty to conspiring to obtain property by deception. He admitted receiving a total of andpound;51,920.
Held: This amount represented his benefit from his relevant criminal conduct for the purpose of the Act. That he had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Benefits

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223364

Braintree District Council v Alisdair Stuart Thompson: CA 7 Mar 2005

Recovery of excess housing benefit paid under fraudulent claim. A social security commissioner could substitute jis own judgment on a question of law to that of the appeal tribunal, but on a question of fact it should not interfere.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice May Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 178, Times 05-Apr-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223274

Secretary 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 of work for incapacity. His child returned to Portugal to stay with his grandmother from time to time. He said that the regulatins discriminated indirectly against migrant workers.
Held: The Regulations were indirectly discriminatory Where it was otherwise clear that such a regulation affected a significant number of people in this way statistical evidence might not be necessary to support a claim. The test was through a comparison between the children of resident and migrant workers.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Slynn Of Hadley

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 111, Times 14-Mar-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Discrimination, European

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222713

Noteboom v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen: ECJ 20 Jan 2005

ECJ Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Old-‘age benefits – Holiday pay- given to persons entitled to a retirement pension – Unemployed frontier worker receiving benefit of a pension scheme

Judges:

N Colneric (Rapporteur) AP

Citations:

C-101/04, [2005] EUECJ C-101/04

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

European, Benefits

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221553

Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security (No 2): CA 21 Dec 2004

The claimant shared child care with his former partner, but claimed that the system which gave the job-seeker’s child care supplement to one party only was discriminatory.
Held: In such cases the supplement usually went to the mother, and this had a diverse impact on men. It was for the Secretary of State to justify the discrimination. He had not done so. The rule was indirectly discriminatory against fathers; and the link with child benefit could not be justified. Treating only one parent as responsible in a shared care situation could not be justified.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Arden LJ, Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1749, Times 04-Jan-2005, [2005] IRLR 471, [2005] 1 FCR 286, [2005] Eu LR 385, [2005] 1 FLR 1009, [2005] Fam Law 464

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996, Equal Treatment dDirective 79/7/EEC A4, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Seymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another ECJ 9-Feb-1999
Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and . .
Cited – Regina (Barber) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 17-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged the refusal of the respondent, under authority of the regulations, to divide payment of child benefit between himself and his former partner. The child stayed with both parents. Other benefits flowed from the allocation of . .
Cited – Inge Nolte v Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover ECJ 14-Dec-1995
Europa Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that persons in employment which is . .
Cited – Ingrid Rinner-Kuehn v Fww Spezial-Gebaudereinigung Gmbh and Co. Kg ECJ 13-Jul-1989
The Court heard a complaint about a German statute providing that an employer need not pay sick pay to a part-time worker. In at least seven member states part-time workers were predominantly women (the percentages ranging from 89% in the Federal . .
Cited – Megner and Scheffel v Innungskrankenkasse Vorderpfalz ECJ 14-Dec-1995
The mere fact that the legislative provision affects far more women than men at work cannot be regarded as a breach of Article 119 of the Treaty. . .
Cited – Jorgensen v Foreningen Speciallaeger and another ECJ 6-Apr-2000
Mrs Jorgensen, a specialist rheumatologist, complained about a rule which meant that, if she sold her practice, it would, because of its turnover, be treated as a part-time practice and subject to a cap on the fees it could receive from the Danish . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from . .
See Also – Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 2-May-2001
Issues relating to Job Seekers’ Allowance provide for the risks of unemployment, and fell within the Equal Treatment Directive. The scheme failed to treat equally with his wife, a man who was separated from her, but whose children stayed with him . .

Cited by:

Cited – Humphreys v Revenue and Customs SC 16-May-2012
Separated parents shared the care of their child. The father complained that all the Child Tax Credit was given to the mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the rule does happen to be indirectly discriminatory against fathers, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221015

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Perkins and Another: CA 17 Nov 2004

Mr Perkins was aged 87 years, and claimed housing benefit on the basis that his income was below the applicable level. His son sent him money regularly from Australia. He appealed refusal of benefit.
Held: The claimant maintained two accounts. He was able to maintain himself from the sums other than that received from his son. There was no evidence that the voluntary payments were to be used for any particular purpose. It was for the tribunal to decide whether the sums received were to be applied for the items allowed under sch 13 of the regulations. Their decision was properly made and it would be wrong to interfere.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Sedley LJ, Sir Willaim Aldous

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1671, Times 16-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 Sch 4, Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Hughes (A Minor) CA 15-Jan-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221010

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security, Ex parte Taylor and Chapman: ChD 5 Feb 1996

The applicants were in turn the recipient of a Social Fund loan and a claimant who had been overpaid benefit. Both were later declared bankrupt. The Secretary of State then began to recover the loan and overpayment by deduction from their current benefits. They argued that he was unable to do so because of section 285(3) of the 1986 Act: that the right of deduction was a ‘remedy against the property or person of the bankrupt in respect of that debt’.
Held: Their entitlement was only to the net amount of benefit after deduction of the loan or overpayment and not to the full amount.

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-1996, [1997] BPIR 505

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 285(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Bradley-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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.467179

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Thompson: ChD 28 Nov 2005

The claimant had been late in making class 2 national Insurance contributions over many years. The revenue appealed an order that it should have allowed the late paid contributions to count toward his pension entitlements.
Held: The late payments may have been because of ignorance or lack of care or diligence, but that was not sufficiently good case to allow the revenue a discretion.

Judges:

Patton J

Citations:

Times 04-Jan-2006

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions (transfer of Functions etc) Act 1999 8, Social Security (Crediting and Treatment of Conmtributions and National Insurance Numbers) regulations 2001 (2001 No 769) 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.240081

Gezer v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Dec 2004

Judges:

Mr Justice Elias Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1730

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Gezer v Secretary of State for Home Department and others CA 2-Apr-2004
Application adjourned pending decision of House of Lords . .
Appeal from – Gezer, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 14-Apr-2003
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220344

Esfandiari and others v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions: CA 6 Oct 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1258

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Esfandiari and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 23-Mar-2006
The claimant argued that the funeral benefits regime unlawfully discriminated against migrants because the 1987 Regulations did not permit payments to be made for a burial abroad, except as provided for by EU law.
Held: The argument was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.234554

London Borough of Islington v Gjini: CA 20 Jun 2002

Renewed application for permission to appeal a judgment dismissing the application of the claimant, who is an asylum seeker and single mother, for judicial review and a quashing order in respect of the decision of the London Borough of Islington reducing the financial support provided to her and her dependent child, now aged 7, by pounds 15.00 per week.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 945

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217302