Category: Benefits

Elsie Rita Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer: ECJ 6 Dec 1994

Europa Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – Article 4(1) – Direct effect – National legislation limiting the period prior to the bringing of a claim for benefit for incapacity for work in respect of which arrears are payable – Whether permissible – Directive not properly transposed prior to the bringing of the claim – Not relevant (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 4(1))
The right conferred on women by the direct effect of Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security to claim benefits for incapacity for work under the same conditions as men must be exercised under the conditions determined by national law, provided that those conditions are no less favourable than those relating to similar domestic actions and that they are not framed so as to render virtually impossible the exercise of rights conferred by Community law. It follows that, in so far as those conditions are satisfied, Community law does not preclude the application, to a claim based on the direct effect of Directive 79/7, of a rule of national law which merely limits the period prior to the bringing of the claim in respect of which arrears of benefit are payable, even where that directive has not been properly transposed within the prescribed period in the Member State concerned.

Citations:

C-410/92, [1994] EUECJ C-410/92, [1995] ICR 375

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Cited – Walker-Fox v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Nov-2005
The claimant pensioner had moved to France. He sought to claim a retrospective winter fuel allowance claim. The government had eventually agreed to make payments to UK residents abroad.
Held: The claimant was deemed to have had knowledge of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161023

Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse v Laererstandens Brandforsikring: ECJ 2 Jun 1994

(Judgment) Social security for migrant workers – Benefits payable under the legislation of one Member State for injury sustained in the territory of another Member State – Right of recoupment of the institutions responsible for benefits against the liable third party – Determination according to the national law of the institution responsible – National law not allowing the institution to be subrogated or bring an action for recoupment – Not effective against institutions of the other Member States

Citations:

[1994] ECR I-2259, C-428/92, [1994] EUECJ C-428/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161035

Roks and others v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Gezondheid, Geestelijke en Maatschappelijke Belangen: ECJ 24 Feb 1994

The court considered a complaint of sex discrimination in the allocation of social security benefits, and said: ‘although budgetary considerations may influence a Member State’s choice of social policy and affect the nature or scope of the social protection measures it wishes to adopt, they cannot in themselves constitute the aim pursued by that policy and cannot, therefore, justify discrimination against one of the sexes.
Moreover, to concede that budgetary considerations may justify a difference in treatment as between men and women which would otherwise constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of sex . . would be to accept that the application and scope of as fundamental a rule of Community law as that of equal treatment between men and women might vary in time and place according to the state of the public finances of the Member States.’

Citations:

C-343/92, [1996] EUECJ C-343/92D, [1994] 2 CMLR 325

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160979

Maitland Toosey v Chief Adjudication Officer: ECJ 27 Jan 1994

ECJ 1. The factor which determines whether Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 applies at all is the residence of the person concerned in a Member State other than that to whose legislation he was subject during his last employment. The first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 for that reason does not apply to a worker who moved with his family to a Member State where he resided and worked and where he suffered incapacity for work followed by invalidity, and who subsequently moved to another Member State without working there, before finally taking up residence in a third Member State, where, owing to his invalidity, he does not work or register for employment.
Such a worker is consequently not covered by Article 39(5) of that regulation and must come within the general rule under Article 39(1), which provides that, with regard to invalidity benefit, the competent Member State is the State whose legislation was applicable at the time when incapacity for work followed by invalidity occurred, in this case the State of last employment.
2. It follows from Article 86 of Regulation No 1408/71 and from Article 35 of Regulation No 574/72 that when a claimant submits a claim for invalidity benefit to the institution of the State of residence, that institution is required to forward it to the institution of the competent Member State, that is to say, the State whose legislation was applicable at the time when incapacity for work followed by invalidity occurred.
On the other hand, and in contrast to the system laid down with respect to other benefits, there is no provision in Regulation No 1408/71 which requires the institutions of the State of residence to pay invalidity benefit to a claimant, even if the competent State is required to make reimbursement, subject to the application of Article 114 of Regulation No 574/72 in the case of a dispute between the relevant institutions. Community law, however, does not in any way prohibit the institution of the State of residence from assisting a claimant in the submission of a claim to the institution of the competent State.

Citations:

C-287/92, [1994] EUECJ C-287/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160953

Staatssecretaris van Financien v Zinnecker: ECJ 13 Oct 1993

ECJ (Judgment) 1. It follows from Annex I.I to Regulation No 1408/71, which provides in relation to the Netherlands that any person pursuing an activity or occupation without a contract of employment is to be considered a self-employed person within the meaning of Article 1(a)(ii) of the regulation, that possession of the status of a self-employed person does not depend upon any residence condition in that Member State.
It follows that a German national who is resident in Germany and pursues an activity as a self-employed person as to approximately one half in that State and one half in the Netherlands must be deemed to be a self-employed person falling within the scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71, notwithstanding the fact that he does not fulfil the residence condition laid down by the Netherlands legislation for affiliation to the Netherlands social security scheme.
2. Article 14a of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the legislation applicable to a German national who is resident in Germany and who pursues an activity as a self-employed person as to one half in that State and one half in the Netherlands is that of Germany.

Citations:

C-121/92, [1993] EUECJ C-121/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160915

(Un-named) (HB): SSCS 21 Dec 2006

Housing Benefit – appeal by the claimant against the reserved decision of the tribunal that the claimant was not liable and was not to be treated as liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling which he occupied as his home. T

Citations:

[2006] UKSSCSC CH – 2959 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.249748

Office National des Pensions v Raffaele Levatino (Judgment): ECJ 22 Apr 1993

Europa 1. As regards an employed person or assimilated worker who has completed periods of employment in a Member State, resides in that State and is entitled to a pension there, legislative provisions in that State giving all elderly residents a legally protected right to a minimum pension come within the field of social security covered by Article 51 of the Treaty, even where such legislation might fall outside this classification as regards other categories of recipients. Benefits granted to elderly residents whose resources do not reach the minimum guaranteed by the law and which guarantee to their recipients supplementary resources of an amount equal to the difference between that minimum and part of the resources of any kind available to them must therefore be regarded as ‘old-age benefits’ within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71. 2. The provisions of Article 51(1) of Regulation 1408/71, according to which a recalculation of benefits in accordance with Article 46 of the regulation should not be carried out where the alteration which affects one of the benefits results from events unconnected with the worker’ s personal circumstances and is the consequence of the evolution of the economic and social situation, cannot be applied to an old-age benefit which, whilst aiming to secure a minimum income for its recipients, is of a differential nature and whose amount varies, by its nature, in accordance with the evolution of the amount of the guaranteed minimum income, which is regularly re-assessed, and the resources of the person concerned. The result of the application of that provision would be, on the one hand, that the increase of the resources of the person concerned resulting from the increase in a pension paid to him by virtue of rights acquired in another Member State would not be taken into account and that he would systematically receive an amount of resources exceeding the minimum income guaranteed by law and, on the other, that it would not merely put the migrant worker at an advantage but would alter the purpose of the benefit and disrupt the scheme of the national legislation. Consequently, the provisions of Article 51(2) should be applied to the determination and adjustment of the amount of a benefit designed to secure a guaranteed minimum income paid to a worker who has been in employment in a Member State, resides in that State and receives a retirement pension from that State and a retirement pension from another Member State. As a result of the application of that provision, the benefit should be recalculated in the event of an alteration of the amount of the guaranteed income or of the recipient’ s resources.

Citations:

C-65/92, [1993] EUECJ C-65/92

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160884

Steenhorst-Neerings v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen: ECJ 27 Oct 1993

Europa Community law does not preclude the application of a national rule of law according to which benefits for incapacity for work are payable no more than one year before the date of claim, in the case where an individual seeks to rely on rights conferred directly, with effect from 23 December 1984, by Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC concerning the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex in matters of social security and where, on the date the claim for benefit was made, the Member State concerned had not yet properly transposed that provision into national law. A national rule restricting the retroactive effect of claims for benefits for incapacity for work does not seek to restrict the right of individuals to rely on Directive 79/7 before the national courts in proceedings against a Member State at fault but serves the requirements of sound administration, in particular as regards the possibility of ascertaining whether the claimant satisfied the conditions for eligibility and the need to determine the degree of incapacity, which may well vary over time, as well as the need to preserve financial equilibrium in a scheme in which claims submitted by insured persons in the course of a year must in principle be covered by the contributions collected during that same year. 2. A Member State may not maintain a provision which, according to its wording, gives rise to a discrimination between men and women within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7. If, however, despite that wording, the national courts consistently apply such a provision without distinction to women and men in the same situation, there is nothing to preclude the national courts from continuing to apply that provision in disputes before them in accordance with such case-law, which enables them to ensure that Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 is given full effect for so long as the Member State has not yet adopted the legislation necessary to implement it in full. Consequently, Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 does not preclude the application by the national courts of a legislative provision according to which only women forfeit their benefits for incapacity for work on being awarded a widow’ s pension, if that provision is consistently applied by the courts to widows and widowers alike where they suffer incapacity for work.

Citations:

C-338/91, [1993] ECR 1-5475, [1993] EUECJ C-338/91, [1994] ECR I 5483

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer ECJ 11-Jul-1991
ECJ 1. Article 2 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC, 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 the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Magorrian and Cunningham v Eastern Health and Social Services Board and Department of Health and Social Services ECJ 11-Dec-1997
Pension entitlements for part time workers discriminated against were to be re-calculated to allow for wrongful treatment since 1976
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Office of the Industrial . .
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Cited – Walker-Fox v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Nov-2005
The claimant pensioner had moved to France. He sought to claim a retrospective winter fuel allowance claim. The government had eventually agreed to make payments to UK residents abroad.
Held: The claimant was deemed to have had knowledge of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160839

Jackson and Cresswell v Chief Adjudication Officer (Judgment): ECJ 16 Jul 1992

Europa Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, which defines the matters covered by the directive, is to be interpreted as not referring to a statutory scheme which, on certain conditions, provides persons with means below a legally defined limit with a special benefit designed to enable them to meet their needs. That interpretation is not affected by the circumstance that the claimant is suffering from one of the risks listed in Article 3 of the directive.
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 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, under a social security scheme which, on certain conditions, provides persons with means below a legally defined limit with a special benefit designed to enable them to meet their needs, the conditions of entitlement for receipt of the benefits may be such as to affect the ability of a single parent to take up access to vocational training or part-time employment is not sufficient to bring that scheme within its scope.

Citations:

C-63/91, [1992] EUECJ C-63/91

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160659

Hughes v Chief Adjudication Officer (Judgment): ECJ 16 Jul 1992

Europa Social security for migrant workers – Community rules – Scope ratione materiae – Benefits covered and benefits excluded – Criteria for distinguishing – Benefit intended to meet the claimant’ s family expenses and granted on the basis of objective, legally-defined criteria – Included – Non-contributory benefit – No effect (Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(1)(h)) 2. Social security for migrant workers – Family benefits – Employed person subject to the legislation of one Member State but resident with his family in another Member State – Derived right of spouse to the family benefits provided for by the legislation to which the worker is subject – Conditions (Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 73).

Citations:

C-78/91, [1992] EUECJ C-78/91

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160672

Doriguzzi-Zordanin v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben: ECJ 19 Mar 1992

ECJ Social security for migrant workers – Family allowances – Benefits for orphans – Benefits payable by State of residence – Amount of benefits paid in State of residence less than that payable under the legislation of another Member State – Right to benefit supplement – Calculation – Benefits to be taken into account
Article 78 of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the benefit supplement payable where the amount of the benefits actually received in the Member State of residence is less than that of the benefits which the orphan would be entitled to under the legislation of another Member State, all the benefits intended for the orphan in the Member States concerned must be taken into account, in so far as those benefits fall within the definition in paragraph 1 of that article.

Judges:

F. A. Schockweiler, P

Citations:

C-188/90, [1992] EUECJ C-188/90

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation No 1408/71 78(1) 78(2)(b)(i)

European, benefits

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160505

Commission v Netherlands C-198/90: ECJ 28 Nov 1991

(Judgment) (Rec 1991,p I-5799) 1. Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, which is designed to resolve conflicts of legislation which may arise where, over the same period, the place of residence and the place of employment are not situated in the same Member State, does not apply in the case of an employed person who, after definitively ceasing all occupational activity, receives an early-retirement pension and resides in a Member State other than the one in which he was last employed. For that reason Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 is also not applicable to such a person, with the result that the residence conditions governing the grant of family benefits contained in the legislation of the Member State in which he was last employed may be relied on as against him, and the fact that he continues to be compulsorily insured under one of the branches of the national social security scheme has no effect on this situation.
2. The scope of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty is delimited both by the preliminary administrative procedure provided for by that article and by the form of order sought in the application. The scope of the action cannot be extended after the issue of the reasoned opinion, since the application and the reasoned opinion must be founded on the same grounds and submissions.

Citations:

[1991] EUECJ C-198/90, [1991] ECR I-5799

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits, Employment

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160515

Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer: ECJ 11 Jul 1991

ECJ 1. Article 2 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC, 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 the directive does not apply to a person who has interrupted his or her occupational activity in order to attend to the upbringing of his or her children and who is prevented by illness from returning to employment unless that person was seeking employment and his or her search was interrupted by the materialization of one of the risks specified in Article 3(1)(a) of the directive, it being unnecessary to make a distinction according to the reason for which that person left previous employment. It is for the national court to determine that the person relying on Directive 79/7 was actually seeking employment at the time when one of the risks specified in Article 3(1)(a) of the directive materialized.
2. Since the expiry of the period for the transposition of Directive 79/7 it has been possible to rely on Article 4 of the directive in order to have set aside national legislation which makes entitlement to a benefit subject to the previous submission of a claim in respect of a different benefit which has been abolished and which entailed a condition discriminating against female workers. In the absence of appropriate measures for implementing Article 4 of Directive 79/7, women placed at a disadvantage by the maintenance of the discrimination are entitled to be treated in the same manner and to have the same rules applied to them as men who are in the same situation, since, where the directive has not been implemented correctly, those rules remain the only valid point of reference.

Judges:

JC Moitinho de Almeida, P

Citations:

[1991] ECR I-3723, C-31/90, [1991] EUECJ C-31/90

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Steenhorst-Neerings v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Europa Community law does not preclude the application of a national rule of law according to which benefits for incapacity for work are payable no more than one year before the date of claim, in the case where . .
Cited – Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant had come from France to England, and worked as a teaching assistant. She set out on a course to train as a teacher but became pregnant, gave up the course, and eventually gave up work temporarily. Her claim to Income Support was refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Benefits

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160431

Masgio v Bundesknappschaft: ECJ 7 Mar 1991

ECJ Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty and the legislation adopted in implementation thereof, which includes Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71, prevent a worker from losing, as a consequence of the exercise of his right to freedom of movement, the advantages in the field of social security guaranteed to him by the laws of a single Member State, since such a consequence could deter workers from exercising that right and would therefore constitute an obstacle to that freedom. Those provisions must therefore be interpreted as meaning that a migrant worker who is receiving an old-age pension under the legislation of one Member State and accident insurance benefits paid by an insurance institution of another Member State may not be put in a worse position, for the purpose of calculating the portion of the benefit to be suspended pursuant to the legislation of the first State, than a worker who has not exercised his right of free movement and is receiving both benefits under the legislation of a single Member State. No justification for such inequality of treatment can be afforded by any practical difficulties which social security institutions may encounter when calculating entitlement to benefits.

Citations:

[1991] ECR I-1119, C-10/90, [1991] EUECJ C-10/90

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits, Employment

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160415

Wisely v John Fulton Plumbers Ltd (Scotland) and Wadey v Surrey County Council: HL 6 Apr 2000

A plaintiff in a personal injury action, was entitled to claim, and be paid, interest on his award for compensation for lost earnings, even though some part of it was to be paid direct to the Department of Social Security by way of recovery of benefits. The scheme for recovery of benefits paid deliberately stayed clear of complications which would arise if attempts were to be made to recalculate awards if interest on this element was not to be included. Section 17 meant that interest had to be calculated by reference to a figure which ignored the fact that benefits had been received and ignored the fact that the defendant was paying the benefits to the Secretary of State.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Woolf MR, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 07-Apr-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000, [2000] UKHL 24, [2000] 1 WLR 820

Links:

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

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wisely v John Fulton (Plumbers) Ltd IHCS 2-Dec-1998
Benefits which might be payable or recoverable in respect of damages should not be disregarded when the court considers what elements are to be allowed interest when calculating personal injury damages. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Wisely v John Fulton (Plumbers) Ltd IHCS 2-Dec-1998
Benefits which might be payable or recoverable in respect of damages should not be disregarded when the court considers what elements are to be allowed interest when calculating personal injury damages. . .
Cited – Eagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages, Benefits, Scotland

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159058

Chief Adjudication Officer v Faulds (Scotland): HL 11 May 2000

A claim for industrial injuries benefit must be related to an identifiable accident. Where the injury, being psychological, arose from exposure to a multiple of serious accidents, and no particular one or identified series, could properly be said to be the cause of the injury, the benefit was not payable. The distinction is between an accident and a process.

Citations:

Gazette 31-May-2000, Times 16-May-2000, [2000] 2 All ER 961, [2000] UKHL 26, [2000] 1 WLR 1035

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 94(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Scotland, Benefits

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159060

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 for roughly equal times during the week, and where she received the child benefit, and he was refused the additional benefits to which she was entitled. The Regulations said that the additional benefits would accrue only to somebody who received the child benefit. The fact that the benefit was income not contribution based did not take the benefit out of the Directive.

Judges:

Aldous, Tuckey, Kay LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-May-2001, [2001] 2 CMLR 51, [2001] EWCA Civ 624, [2001] ICR 966

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (1996 No 207) 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147525

Charles Alexis Beattie – v – Secretary of State for Social Security: CA 9 Apr 2001

Regular payments from a structured settlement which had been awarded as damages in a personal injury action were capital treated as income under the regulations, and the entitlement to income support was to be affected accordingly. The regulations stated that capital payable by installments or income received under an annuity were to be treated as income, and the structured settlement was in the nature of an annuity.

Citations:

Times 03-May-2001, Gazette 01-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 498

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967) 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Damages

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147503

Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service: CA 10 Apr 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 512, (2001) 33 HLR 83, (2001) 4 CCL Rep 143

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service Admn 27-Feb-2001
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Westminster 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Local Government, Human Rights

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147509

Secretary of State for Social Security v David: CA 15 Dec 2000

The applicant had been detained by the police for 42 hours then released. No charge was made. The applicant had suspended his Job-Seeker’s Allowance for a week. The applicant challenged a tribunal’s finding.
Held: The construction of such detention as a physical condition stretched credulity. The applicant was free to suspend benefits. However this appeared to be a lacuna in the law which could mean that anyone unavailable for a few hours would lose their benefits for an entire week.

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 330

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Jobseekers Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147363

Wilkinson v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 24 Mar 2000

The claimant owned a half share in a property. It was said that this brought her disposable capital above the limit to make a claim. She had inherited it, but had transferred it to her brother in satisfaction of her mother’s wishes.

Judges:

Lord Justice Evans, Lord Justice Potter and Lord Justice Mummery

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 88

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bull v Bull CA 1955
The parties were mother and son who had purchased a property as joint tenants. The son contributed a greater part of the purchase price. The son then married, and agreements were reached as to occupation of different parts of the house. When those . .
Cited – In re Mayo ChD 1943
The court discussed the duty of trustees to sell in the absence of unanimity: ‘The trust for sale will prevail, unless all three trustees agree in exercising the power to postpone.’ . .
Cited – Chief Adjudication Officer and Another v Palfrey; Same v Dowell, Same v McDonnell CA 17-Feb-1995
Property was acquired by joint owners to provide accommodation for both joint owners. That purpose would be defeated if one of those acquiring the property were to insist on a sale while that purpose was still subsisting. The value of a joint . .
Cited – Jones v Challenger CA 1960
The test under the section was whether it was inequitable to make the order for sale where one of the joint beneficiaries, who in that case were ex-husband and wife, wished to realise their investment in the property.
Held: Referring to the . .
Cited – Barclay v Barclay CA 1970
The question arose prior to sale between the sole trustee and an occupying beneficial tenant in common as to whether the property should be sold.
Held: The trustee of land was entitled to sell the property and divide the proceeds as the prime . .
Cited – In re Buchanan – Wollaston’s Covenant 1939
When considering the need to order the sale of property against the wishes of a joint owner, ‘the Court has a complete discretion to do what is right and proper, and will not allow the voice of the man who is in breach of his obligation to persist’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Benefits

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147121

Appleby v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 29 Jun 1999

The phrase ‘pneumatic percussive tools’ included, generally, items classified by the industry as machine tools, and therefore air powered electrodes which were used as part of spot-welding equipment were such for the purposes of entitlement to disablement benefit for occupational deafness. Tools and parts of them can be machine tools.

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1707

Statutes:

Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 (1985 No 967)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146622

T and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Education: Admn 6 Oct 2018

Claim for judicial review brought by three parents and three children challenging regulations which have the effect that the defendant, the Secretary of State for Education, is to secure that an additional 15 hours a week of free childcare is available for children of working parents.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2582 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Benefits

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625912

Stephenson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council: Admn 12 Oct 2004

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2228 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.216387

Regina (Kimani) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 31 Jul 2003

An asylum seeker married an Irish national after entry after refusal, but before being removed.
Held: The definition of marriage did not exclude marriages of convenience. Unlike an asylum seeker afraid of returning home, one who had a right to stary pending determination of her appeal had no right to benefits.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Lords Justice Judge and Kay

Citations:

Gazette 02-Oct-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.190510

Chief Adjudication Officer and Another v Maguire: CA 23 Mar 1999

A claimant who had satisfied the conditions required to become eligible for special hardship allowance but who had yet made no claim, retained his right to the allowance after the Act under which the claim might be brought was repealed. ‘A mere hope or expectation of acquiring a right is insufficient. An entitlement, however, even if inchoate or contingent, suffices. The fact that further steps may still be necessary to prove that the entitlement existed before repeal, or to prove its true extent, does not preclude it being regarded as a right . . [W]hether or not there is an acquired right depends upon whether at the date of repeal the claimant has an entitlement (at least contingent) to money or other certain benefit receivable by him, provided only that he takes all appropriate steps by way of notices and/or claims thereafter.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1060, [1999] 1 WLR 1778

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Interpretation Act 1978 16(1), Social Security Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Constitutional

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.145975

Lucja Czop v Margita Punakova: ECJ 6 Sep 2012

ECJ Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 – Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of permanent residence – Social assistance benefits – Care of a child – Period of residence completed before the State of origin acceded to the European Union

Citations:

C-147/11, [2012] EUECJ C-147/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/38/EC, Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.464450

Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service: Admn 27 Feb 2001

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 138

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service CA 10-Apr-2001
. .
At first instance – Westminster 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, Local Government

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140285

Regina v Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust, ex Parte Reffell: Admn 28 Jun 2000

The applicant had come to England to have heart surgery. He expected to pay, and brought with him sufficient to pay for the operation. Unanticipated complications led to delay, and the depletion of his funds. He applied for the operation to be paid for from NHS funds. The hospital refused, and the court held rightly so. The legislation provided no obligation to provide health services for overseas visitors. Such services were provided on a commercial basis, and the operation would be available to him if he returned home to Nigeria.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Sep-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 363

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors)

Health, Benefits

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140178

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte F S Salem: Admn 11 Dec 1997

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him asylum. The decision had been made and his benefits stopped, but he was not given any detail of the notice for several months.
Held: The decision did appear to have been made and final. The question at issue appeared to have been decided in the cases cited. Leave was refused.

Judges:

Mr Justice Tucker

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 1123

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants CA 27-Jun-1996
The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Bawa Admn 27-Oct-1997
The court considered the effect of a decision letter issued by the Secretary of State but which was not sent to the applicant. Nevertheless it had the effect of stopping his benefits.
Held: The letter was clear and unambiguous; it is in no way . .
Appealed to – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Salem CA 19-Dec-1997
This was an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review. The issue raised was parallel to issues raised in the Rafiq case which had been heard but on which judgment was presently reserved. The case revealed a real issue of law, . .
Appealed to – Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Salem CA 19-Dec-1997
This was an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review. The issue raised was parallel to issues raised in the Rafiq case which had been heard but on which judgment was presently reserved. The case revealed a real issue of law, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.138068

Parish Council of Glasgow v Parish Council of Kilmalcolm: HL 29 May 1906

A person whom ‘mental weakness and chronic physical disease’ renders incapable of maintaining himself, may, by the necessary residence for the requisite period in a charitable institution, without begging or applying for parochial relief, acquire a residential settlement in the parish where the institution is situated. Question whether an insane person could so acquire a residential settlement.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), and Lords Macnaghten, Davey, James of Hereford, Robertson, and Atkinson

Citations:

[1906] UKHL 639, 43 SLR 639

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.625462

Salemink v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen: ECJ 8 Sep 2011

ECJ Social security for migrant workers – Compulsory insurance – Refusal to grant of disability – Workers employed on gas platforms located on the continental shelf adjacent to the territorial sea of ??a Member State

Citations:

C-347/10, [2011] EUECJ C-347/10, [2012] EUECJ C-347/10

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.444134

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Services, ex parte Camden London Borough Council: CA 1987

A directory referred to in a statutory instrument setting a level of benefits had not itself been passed by Parliament.
Held: There was no legal flaw in a statutory instrument which fixed the amount of benefits by reference to a directory separately published by the Secretary of State. The directory had not been laid before Parliament with the draft instrument but was already in existence and able to be referred to.
Slade LJ referred with approval to Macpherson J’s observations in the court below about the technique of reference to outside documents in a statutory instrument. The judge said that, provided the reference was to an existing document and there was no question of sub-delegation, there was no objection to this practice in the eyes of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and that there had been an increasing tendency to resort to this technique. The court’s task was to look to see whether the reference offended against the provisions of the enabling statute and was in truth simply part of the regulations by which the Secretary of State purported to exercise his powers. If that inquiry is negative, then all is well. Any control of the extended use of references which are permissible in their own statutory context was a matter for Parliament and its practices.

Judges:

Slade, Parker and Mustill LJJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 819

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary 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: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.417812

Regina (T and Another) v Secretary of State for Health and Another: QBD 29 Jul 2002

The applicant sought financial support whilst her application for asylum was considered. She was HIV positive, and had a child to breastfeed. Without financial assistance she would have to breast feed causing a risk of transmitting HIV to her child.
Held: The Secretary of State should have seen her circumstances as sufficiently exceptional to deserve reconsideration. The possible appalling consequences must justify considering why she should not breast feed.

Judges:

Sir Edwin Jowitt

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 96(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.174767

Regina v Somerset County Council ex parte Faith Gertrude Harcombe (By Her Son and Next Friend David Peter Timothy Harcombe): Admn 28 Apr 1997

A charge placed upon a house by the respondent local authority to secure payment for residential care for the owner was valid. The authority had a broad discretion which it had validly exercised.

Citations:

Times 07-May-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 422

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948, National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2977)

Benefits, Local Government, Local Government

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137367

Regina 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

Citations:

Times 31-Jul-1997

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87728

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Services Ex Parte Sarwar and Others: QBD 12 Apr 1995

Regulations introducing a ‘habitual residence’ condition to Income Support were intra vires.

Citations:

Times 19-Jun-1995, Independent 12-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Income Related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 1807), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87777

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:

Cited – Secretary 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:

Cited – Solihull 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. . .
Cited – Sims 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

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

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

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 from – 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. . .
See Also – Chief 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 from – 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. . .
See Also – Chief Adjudication Officer and Another v Steane and Another SSCS 24-Jul-1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local social services authority is obliged, under section 21(1)(a) of the 1948 Act, to arrange (and pay for) residential accommodation for a person subject to immigration control who is HIV positive but whose only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89522