Category: Benefits

JW and EW v United Kingdom: ECHR 1982

The Commission considered a complaint that the UK government’s failure to pay an uprated pension infringed the pensioner’s Convention rights. The applicants were emigrating to Australia. The Commission rejected the complaint as inadmissible, saying ‘The Commission has considered the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of the Protocol. It first recalls that it has previously held that although this provision does not as such guarantee a right to a pension, the right to benefit from a social security system to which a person has contributed may in some circumstances be a property right protected by it. However the Commission also held that Article 1 does not guarantee a right to a pension of any particular amount, but that the right safeguarded by Article 1 consists, at most, ‘in being entitled as a beneficiary of the social insurance scheme to any payments made by the fund’ (App. No. 5849/72, Muller v. Austria, D.R 3, p.25 at p. 31). It has further held that before the right to benefit protected by Article 1 can be established, it is necessary that the interested party should have satisfied domestic legal requirements governing the right (App. No. 7459/76, X. v. Italy, D.R. 11, p. 114). In the present case when the applicants emigrate to Australia their entitlement to benefit from the United Kingdom pension scheme will come to be regulated by different rules of domestic law, under which they will cease to qualify for payment of future pension increases contemplated by the relevant legislation. To that extent they will not satisfy domestic legal requirements to benefit from the United Kingdom pension scheme. Even if the right to benefit from a scheme will normally also apply to the regular increases this is not necessarily the case where a person leaves the country where the specific scheme operates. The Commission notes that in many countries specific restrictions as to the payment of social security benefits to foreign countries exist or have existed . . In the Commission’s view such operation of domestic law does not amount to a deprivation of possessions infringing Article 1 of the Protocol and there is thus no appearance of any breach of this provision.’

Citations:

9776/82

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Annette Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 22-May-2002
The claimant received a UK state pension. She lived in South Africa, and challenged the exclusion of foreign resident pensioners from the annual uprating of pension benefits. She asserted that the state pension, or its uprating, were pecuniary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.180999

Regina (on the Application of Husain) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 5 Oct 2001

New regulations created a system under which applicants for asylum could be deprived of all benefits on the decision of an asylum support adjudicator. That person was appointed by the Home Secretary, and it was alleged was not impartial. It was argued that the system was dispensing discretionary benefits, and not rights, and that a withdrawal of those benefits was not an interference with rights. Making the benefit discretionary was deliberate, but involved a degree of unreality. The applicant had a right to have his appeal heard by someone independent of the Secretary of State. The tribunals were established by law as required. Whilst it would be preferable fro a different department to be responsible for the appointments, the system retained sufficient impartiality. Courts should lean against accepting judicial review as a substitute for the independence of tribunals. In this case the asylum seeker had had his support withdrawn after an allegation of assault. However under the licence agreement that support was to be withdrawn only in case of misuse of the premises. One such an assault was not capable of being misuse.

Judges:

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001, 2001] EWHC Admin 852, CO/105/2001

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Asylum Support Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Immigration, Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.166548

The Queen v The Inhabitants of Barnsley: 12 May 1849

It is not necessary that a lunatic, chargeable to a parish, should be sent to an asylum or licensed house. The justice before whom he is brought is to decide whether he is a proper person to he confined or not; and, if not corifined, he may Be removed to his parish as an ordinary pauper. An idiot, aged thirty, living with his parents in parish B., became chargeable; and thereupon he and they were removed by order of justices to parish T., their place of settlement. The order was never appealed against. The father retained his house in B, in the care of two of his children, who were emancipated; and, when removed, he intended to return as soon as he could. After four days, the paupers did return to the house in B, with the consent of the overseers of T, who promised to send weekly relief to the parents for the son : but the son again became chargeable to B; and another order was made, finding the son and parents chargeable, and ordering their removal to T. The famiIy had resided in B. for five years next before the makirig of this order, excepting only the four days above mentioned. On appeal (not stating as a ground that the parents were not chargeable at the date of the second order), and case stated by the sessions : Held that the five years’ residence was broken by the removal to parish T., arid that the paupers were not irremoveable from B. under stat. 9 and 10 Vict. c. 66, s. I.

Citations:

[1849] EngR 628, (1849) 12 QB 193, (1849) 116 ER 840

Links:

Commonlii

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.298933

CIS 5848/99: SSAT 1999

Because it was the practice of the child benefit officer to notify the relevant Social Security Office of child benefit awards, the latter office must be taken to have known of an award which was not disclosed to them by the claimant and that the non-disclosure was therefore not the cause of an overpayment. (Obiter) in modern conditions, with the availability of computer systems, claimants might be entitled to assume that information had been communicated between officials of the department and that disclosure was therefore unnecessary.

Judges:

Commissioner Howell QC

Citations:

CIS 5848/99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Benefits

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223215

In re Woodling; Woodling v Secretary of State for Social Services: HL 1984

The question of law was whether cooking meals was ‘attention in connection with bodily functions’ for the purpose of attendance allowance.
Held: Though courts are willing to give ‘bodily functions’ a fairly wide meaning, it did not include the performance of domestic tasks like cooking. The service in question must be directed primarily to those bodily functions of the dependent person ‘which the fit person normally performs for himself.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1984] 1 WLR 348, [1984] 1 All ER 593

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Regina v National Insurance Commissioner, Ex parte Secretary of State for Social Services; In re Packer CA 1981
Mrs Packer, a lady of eighty-three, claimed an attendance allowance under the Act of 1975 in respect of the cooking of her meals which she could not do herself. The Commissioner thought that eating was a bodily function and that cooking was so . .

Cited by:

Cited – Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 31-Jul-2003
The appellant had applied for and been refused disability living allowance on the basis of being able to carry out certain cooking tasks.
Held: The purpose of the ‘cooking test’ is not to ascertain whether the applicant can survive, or enjoy a . .
Cited – Cockburn v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another and Secretary of State for Social Services v Fairey HL 21-May-1997
The provision of an interpreter for a deaf person was included in range of care needed for attendance for Disability Living Allowance. Dealing with his soiled laundry was not so included: ‘In my opinion it is not enough to ask whether the act in . .
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185430

Vaughan v United Kingdom: ECHR 1987

Article 8 does not impose any positive obligation to provide financial assistance to support a person’s family life.

Citations:

12639/87

Cited by:

Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184543

Rex v Inhabitants of Eastbourne: 1803

As to there being no obligation for maintaining poor foreigners before the statutes ascertaining the different methods of acquiring settlements, the law of humanity, which is anterior to all positive laws, obliges us to afford them relief, to save them from starving.

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough CJ

Citations:

(1803) 4 East 103, [1803] EngR 629, (1803) 102 ER 769

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Q and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Mar-2003
The Home Secretary appealed a ruling that his implementation of section 55 was unlawful, having been said to be incompatible with human rights law.
Held: The way in which the section had been operated, by denying consideration and all benefits . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.179881

Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen: ECJ 12 Jul 2001

Where a member of a sickness scheme sought treatment in another member state, it was proper to require prior authorisation, but any conditions imposed had to be justifiable and proportionate. In this case the scheme required the recognition of the treatment sought, and that immediate treatment in the country was not available. Hospital services were capable of constituting economic activity, and were accordingly required to be free of restraint by Community law. Re-imbursement by a member state’s sickness benefits scheme did not take it out of the scope of Article 60. The additional restrictions were valid only in so far as they required that the treatment be tried and tested, or that equivalent treatment was available locally without undue delay.

Judges:

GC Rodriguez Iglesias, President and Judges C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P.
Jann, L. Sevon, R. Schintgen and F. Macken Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer

Citations:

Times 03-Sep-2001, Case C-157/99

Statutes:

EC Treaty Article 60 234

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Applied – Watts, Regina (on the Application of) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and others Admn 1-Oct-2003
The claimant sought hip-replacement treatment. She was first told that she would have to wait a year. As her lawyers pressed the respondent, she looked at obtaining treatment in France. As she decided to take the treatment, the respondent reduced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Benefits, Commercial

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.162937

Jansen v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz: ECJ 5 May 1977

ECJ Article 2 of regulation no 3 and article 4 of regulation no 1408/71, which lay down the matters covered by those regulations, deal with the various national social security schemes in their entirety. The reimbursement of social security contributions therefore forms part of the matters covered by those regulations. Since regulation no 3 does not contain any specific provision relating to the reimbursement of contributions the general rules affirmed by that regulation and by the provisions of the treaty to which it gives effect, such as the rule on equality of treatment and that on the waiving of residence clauses, are applicable. Article 10 (2) of regulation no 1408/71, which constitutes a specific provision and introduces a new rule in respect of the reimbursement of contributions, cannot, however, be extended to facts which occurred outside the period covered by that regulation. Although the provisions of article 51 of the eec treaty and of the regulations adopted to give it effect ensure that, for the purpose of acquiring and retaining the right to benefit, migrant workers enjoy aggregation of all periods taken into account under the laws of the several countries, they cannot however be interpreted, in the absence of express provisions, as preventing persons so favoured from exercising the legal options open to them under the legislation of one or other of the member states, such as the right of applying in certain circumstances for the reimbursement of social security contributions. Therefore, community law, as it stood at the time of the adoption of regulation no 3, cannot be interpreted as excluding an option available under a national legislation with regard to the reimbursement of social security contributions.

Citations:

C-104/76

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.132502

Secretary of State for Social Security v Harmon; Same v Carter; Same v Cocks: CA 10 Jun 1998

The duty of a parent with care to apply for child support applies if he or she is actually paid benefit, irrespective of any possibility that the benefit claim may fall to be challenged. The requirement is that benefits are actually not just lawfully paid.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jun-1998, Times 10-Jun-1998

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support, Benefits

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89094

Everson and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Another Case C-198/88: ECJ 1 Feb 2000

Where a company in one member state, had employees working in another member state, and those employees and the company as required paid taxes in the company wher ethe work was carrid out, then upon the insolvency of the company, the member state liable as the state guaranteeing the employment obligations of the insolvent employer was the state in which the work was carried out, and not the company’s home state.

Citations:

Times 01-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment, Benefits

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.80396

Bracking and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 6 Nov 2013

Application for permission to appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decision by the respondent to close the Independent Living Fund.
Held: McCombe LJ summarised the application of section 149 of the 2010 Act: ‘1 . . equality duties are an integral and important part of the mechanisms for ensuring the fulfilment of the aims of anti-discrimination legislation.
2 . . An important evidential element in the demonstration of the discharge of the duty is the recording of the steps taken by the decision maker in seeking to meet the statutory requirements . .
3 The relevant duty is upon the Minister or other decision maker personally. What matters is what he or she took into account and what he or she knew. Thus, the Minister or decision maker cannot be taken to know what his or her officials know or what may have been in the minds of officials in proffering their advice . .
4 A Minister must assess the risk and extent of any adverse impact and the ways in which such risk may be eliminated before the adoption of a proposed policy and not merely as a ‘rearguard action’, following a concluded decision . .
5 ‘[G]eneral regard to issues of equality is not the same as having specific regard, by way of conscious approach to the statutory criteria. .
7 Officials reporting to or advising Ministers/other public authority decision makers, on matters material to the discharge of the duty, must not merely tell the Minister/decision maker what he/she wants to hear but they have to be ‘rigorous in both enquiring and reporting to them’

Judges:

Elias, Kitchin, McCombe LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 1345, [2014] Eq LR 60

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bracking and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another Admn 24-Apr-2013
‘The claimants are all severely disabled people who are current users of the Independent Living Fund (ILF). They seek judicial review of two decisions of the defendant Secretary of State. The first is the consultation engaged in between July and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Robson 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 . .
Cited – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
Cited – Jewish Rights Watch (T/A Jewish Human Rights Watch), Regina (on The Application of) v Leicester City Council Admn 28-Jun-2016
The claimant challenged the legaity of resolutions passed by three local authorities which were critical of the State of Israel. They said that the resolultions infringed the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the 2010 Act, and also . .
Cited – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .
Cited – Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office Admn 28-Jul-2021
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory
The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the . .
Cited – Gardner and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Others Admn 27-Apr-2022
Patient transfer policy was unlawful
The claimants had relatives who died in care homes early in the COVID-19 pandemic. They said that the policy of moving patients from hospitals to care homes without testing had contributed to the deaths, and many others, and had been unlawful. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Administrative, Discrimination

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.517456

JS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CA): UTAA 30 Jul 2019

European Union Law – Council Regulations 1408/71/EEC and (Ec) 883/2004 – the United Kingdom is the competent State for the claimant’s claim for a carer’s allowance. The Secretary of State will now investigate and decide whether she qualifies for an award.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 239 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, European

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.642294

Buxton, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 17 Aug 2018

Challenge to cap placed on the amount of certain payments made under a discretionary assistance scheme established under statutory powers to help people with disabilities to work.

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2196 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621156

H v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Aug 2018

The court was asked whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) breached his legal duties to provide support and assistance for the Claimant who had been trafficked as a youngster into the UK. The Claimant also alleges that the treatment he received is illustrative of systemic failings in the treatment of victims of trafficking such that the Court should grant declaratory relief.
Held: There had been failings an errors, but these had now been acknowledged and decision

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2191 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621158

Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern: ECJ 28 Sep 2006

Opinion – Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community – Concept of worker – German official having transferred his permanent residence to Austria while continuing to work in Germany – Refusal to grant child-raising allowance (Erziehungsgeld) to his spouse of Austrian nationality resident in Austria and not working in Germany – Social advantage

Judges:

Geelhoed AG

Citations:

C-212/05, [2006] EUECJ C-212/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 18-Jul-2007
Europa (Grand Chamber) (Free Movement Of Persons) Frontier worker Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Transfer of residence to another Member State Non-working spouse Child-raising allowance Not granted to spouse Social . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618936

TP and AR, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 14 Jun 2018

Two claims challenging aspects of the regulations creating and implementing the system of universal credit, which is intended to replace the existing system of welfare benefits. The claimants are both individuals who, under the previous system governing welfare benefits, had been in receipt of an income related employment and support allowance. In addition, as they met certain additional criteria, they had been in receipt of certain additional premiums (known as Severely Disability Premium and Enhanced Disability Premium.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1474 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618126

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lassal: ECJ 7 Oct 2010

Reference for preliminary ruling – Freedom of movement for persons – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 16 – Right of permanent residence – Temporal application – Periods completed before the date of transposition

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-162/09, [2011] AACR 33, [2011] 1 CMLR 31, [2011] All ER (EC) 1169, [2011] Imm AR 134, ECLI:EU:C:2010:592

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Reference – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lassal CA 10-Mar-2009
The court referred the case to the ECJ. . .
Opinion – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Lassal ECJ 11-May-2010
(European Citizenship) (Opinion) Directive 2004/38/EC Right of Union citizens to reside in the territory of the Member States Article 16(1) Right of permanent residence – Residence for a continuous period of five years Taking into account periods of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 27-Jul-2016
The respondent an Italian national had come to the UK, and married an English wife and making a family here. After the marriage broke down he committed a manslaughter, and on his release it was decided that he should be deported. He successfully . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Vomero (Italy) SC 24-Jul-2019
V, Italian, lived in the UK since 1985. On the breakdown of his marriage he moved in with a Mr Mitchell who he later killed. On release from his sentence for manslaughter, the Appellant decided to deport him. The Court of Appeal rejected the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.628553

EG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pip) (Personal Independence Payment – Daily Living Activities – Activity 7: Communicating Verbally): UTAA 6 Mar 2017

Activity 7 is limited to assessing speech and hearing; it does not include the ability to communicate by means such as text. It must be considered in the light of the activities that a claimant might undertake, but not as they may be limited due to choices made because of a disability (here, potentially choosing unnaturally quiet environments in light of a hearing impairment). Under Activity 9 social support means conduct which is more than prompting, and requires the presence of the person providing that support.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 101 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM SC 18-Jul-2019
This appeal relates to personal independence payment, which is a non-means tested allowance paid to certain people with long term health problems or disability. The appeal’s focus is upon one of the markers used to determine whether a claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.584167

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM: SC 18 Jul 2019

This appeal relates to personal independence payment, which is a non-means tested allowance paid to certain people with long term health problems or disability. The appeal’s focus is upon one of the markers used to determine whether a claimant’s ability to live his or her daily life is limited, by his or her physical or mental condition, to such an extent as to generate an entitlement to personal independence payment (‘PIP’). Various ‘daily living activities’ are examined as markers, and the one in question here is ‘engaging with other people face to face’.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to the FTT for determination in accordance with the guidance given.
‘Engaging with people face to face’ takes many forms, as can the assistance needed for the claimant’s engagement to occur. A narrow and technical approach to the words ‘social support’ (9c) is unwarranted, and inconsistent with the objective of a benefit which is understandable and reaches those needing support to live independently.
What brings the claimant within descriptor 9c rather than 9b is that, to be able to engage with others, he or she needs the support to come from someone ‘trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations’ i.e. the support will only be effective if delivered by someone who is not just familiar with the claimant, but also trained/experienced in assisting engagement in social situations.
Careful scrutiny of the facts may be necessary to determine whether descriptor 9c applies, including probing the information provided by sensitive questions and, where support is already being provided by family/friends, exploring how they have come to know what to do, whether that help could come from any well-meaning friend or family member, and what additional help (if any) is required.
Descriptor 9c is not ‘limited to cases where a claimant needs social support actually during the face to face engagement. Given that social support is likely to take many different forms, depending on the individual needs of the claimant, it is undesirable to attempt to prescribe, in the abstract, which other forms of support will be sufficient. It will be a question of fact and degree, and is something that will have to be worked out on a case by case basis, by those with expertise in making assessments and decisions in relation to claims, keeping the wording of the provision firmly in mind.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Sales

Citations:

2019 GWD 23-373, [2019] PTSR 1476, 2019 SLT 983, [2019] UKSC 34, 2019 SCLR 891, [2020] 1 All ER 829, 2019 SC (UKSC) 47, UKSC 2017/0215

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Apr 09 am Video, SC 2019 Apr 09 pm Video

Statutes:

Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, Welfare Reform Act 2012

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MMcK SCS 24-Aug-2017
(Extra Division, Inner House) Appeal by the Secretary of State against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) raising the question of what is meant by ‘social support’ as that expression is used in Activity 9 descriptor c . .
Cited – EG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pip) (Personal Independence Payment – Daily Living Activities – Activity 7: Communicating Verbally) UTAA 6-Mar-2017
Activity 7 is limited to assessing speech and hearing; it does not include the ability to communicate by means such as text. It must be considered in the light of the activities that a claimant might undertake, but not as they may be limited due to . .
Cited – Hickey v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 20-Apr-2018
Appeal from refusal of Personal Independence Payment
Held: Factors set out in relation to ‘engaging socially’ are nevertheless relevant to the consideration of a person’s ability to engage with other people face to face. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.639672

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MMcK: SCS 24 Aug 2017

(Extra Division, Inner House) Appeal by the Secretary of State against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) raising the question of what is meant by ‘social support’ as that expression is used in Activity 9 descriptor c in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.
Held: the Secretary of State’s approach failed to recognise the potential for overlap between the ‘prompting’ and the ‘social support’ categories. They are not mutually exclusive categories. The critical distinction between descriptor 9b prompting and descriptor 9c support lay not in a difference in the nature of the help provided but in the fact that, with social support, there is a necessity for the help to come from a person trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations. Having given the example of psychological support given by someone trained in psychology, which would clearly count as ‘social support’, it went on to say: ‘But there may be cases where the support is in the nature of encouragement or explanation but, because of the claimant’s mental state, will only be effective if delivered by someone who is trained or experienced in delivering that type of support to that individual. In such a case there will not be a qualitative difference in the help given, but the help can be regarded as ‘support’ because of the necessity for it to be provided by someone trained or experienced in delivering it.’

Judges:

Lord Brodie, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2017] ScotCS CSIH – 57, 2018 SC 1, 2017 SLT 1045, 2017 GWD 29-468, [2019] WLR(D) 460

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM SC 18-Jul-2019
This appeal relates to personal independence payment, which is a non-means tested allowance paid to certain people with long term health problems or disability. The appeal’s focus is upon one of the markers used to determine whether a claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.593570

Hickey v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 20 Apr 2018

Appeal from refusal of Personal Independence Payment
Held: Factors set out in relation to ‘engaging socially’ are nevertheless relevant to the consideration of a person’s ability to engage with other people face to face.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 851, [2018] WLR(D) 236

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM SC 18-Jul-2019
This appeal relates to personal independence payment, which is a non-means tested allowance paid to certain people with long term health problems or disability. The appeal’s focus is upon one of the markers used to determine whether a claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.614900

SC, CB and 8 Children, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others: SC 9 Jul 2021

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the ‘two child limit’, a provision of primary legislation which restricts payment of amounts of subsistence benefit for children to the first two children in a family, is incompatible with the Appellants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held:
Lord Reed observed that the concept of the margin of appreciation is specific to the European Court but domestic courts have generally endeavoured to apply an analogous approach to that of the European Court, for two reasons. The first is the Ullah principle: where the European Court would allow a wide margin of appreciation to the legislature’s policy choice, the domestic courts allow a correspondingly wide margin or ‘discretionary area of judgment’. The second reason is that domestic courts have to respect the separation of powers between the judiciary and the elected branches of government. They therefore have to accord appropriate respect to the choices made in the field of social and economic policy by the Government and Parliament, while at the same time providing a safeguard against unjustifiable discrimination.

Judges:

Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Deputy President, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens

Citations:

[2021] UKSC 26, [2021] WLR(D) 382, [2021] 3 WLR 428, [2022] AC 223, [2021] HRLR 14

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts, WLRD

Statutes:

Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – SC and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others CA 16-Apr-2019
Challenge to two child limit for child tax credit. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Crowter and Others, Regina (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care Admn 23-Sep-2021
Foetus has no Established Human Rights
The Claimants sought a declaration that section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), as well as some other remedies. The claimant had Down’s Syndrome, and complained the . .
Cited – The Department for Communities v Cox CANI 3-Aug-2021
The claimant suffered a life limiting condition, but not so that her death could be reasonably expected within six months. She complained that the resulting unavailability of PIP and UC without assessment was discriminatory as opposed to those who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.666001

Delve and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 15 Sep 2020

Appellants challenged the changes brought about to women’s pensions by the Pensions Acts 1995 and 2007 raising the ages from which pensions would be available.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Underhill and Lady Justice Rose

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1199, [2020] WLR(D) 507, [2020] HRLR 20, [2021] 3 All ER 115, [2021] ICR 236

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Acts 2007, Pensions Acts 2011, Pensions Acts 2014

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Delve and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 3-Oct-2019
Claimants challenged the raising of the age at which women became entitled to a state pension.
Held: The Appellants’ judicial review claim was dismissed. . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Department for Communities v Cox CANI 3-Aug-2021
The claimant suffered a life limiting condition, but not so that her death could be reasonably expected within six months. She complained that the resulting unavailability of PIP and UC without assessment was discriminatory as opposed to those who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.653892

Hampshire v Board of The Pension Protection Fund: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

Social Policy – Insolvency of Their Employer – Entitlement of Employees To Old-Age Benefits – Opinion – Request for a preliminary ruling – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC – Protection of the immediate and prospective entitlement of employees to old-age benefits – Supplementary occupational pension scheme – Minimum guarantee – Direct applicability

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:287, [2018] EUECJ C-17/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits, Employment

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609311

(Un-named) (Tax Credits): UTAA 4 Feb 2009

Judges:

Jacobs UTJ

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 24 (AAC), CTC/2608/2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tax Credits Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Humphreys v Revenue and Customs CA 11-Feb-2010
The court was asked as to entitlement to child tax credit where parents were separated but shared the care of the children.
Held: The discretion to be accorded to the legislature or executive is especially wide where the discrimination is . .
At Upper Tribunal – 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: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.311967

Regina (K) v Lambeth London Borough Council: QBD 16 Apr 2003

The applicant sought payment of benefits. She was an asylum seeker but had married after arrival. It seemed to be a marriage of convenience, and had been deemed such by the Home Secretary for the purposes of her intended repatriation.
Held: Family law recognised no status of a marriage of convenience. She was deemed to be properly, married, and the rules aplied on that basis. As a dependent asylum seeker she was not entitled to benefits unless refusal would constitute an infringement of her human rights.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

Times 14-May-2003

Statutes:

National Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Family, Immigration

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.182211

Collini v Office National des Pensions pour Travailleurs Salaries: ECJ 17 Dec 1987

ECJ 1 Social security for migrant workers – old-age pension – calculation of benefits – community anti-overlapping rule – application where the theoretical amount is exceeded otherwise than by reason of the duplication of insurance periods (council regulation no 1408/71, art. 46 (3)) 2 social security for migrant workers – old-age pension – calculation of benefits – community anti-overlapping rule – method for reduction of benefits – case where only one institution pays an independent benefit -reduction only of the independent benefit (council regulation no 1408/71, art. 46 (3)) 1. The anti-overlapping rule in article 46 (3) of regulation no 1408/71 applies in all cases in which the total sum of the benefits calculated in accordance with article 46 (1) and (2) exceeds the limit of the highest theoretical amount of pension, even if the exceeding of that limit is not due to the duplication of insurance periods. 2. Where there is only one institution providing an independent benefit for the purposes of article 46 (1) of regulation no 1408/71, that institution alone must reduce its benefit pursuant to the second subparagraph of article 46 (3) and must reduce it by the full amount by which the total sum of the benefits calculated in accordance with article 46 (1) and (2) exceeds the limit referred to in the first subparagraph of article 46 (3).

Citations:

C-323/86

European, Benefits

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.134538

Dik v College Van Burgemeester En Wethouders: ECJ 8 Mar 1988

ECJ 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 it does not confer on the member states a discretion to include in national implementing measures a transitional provision which, in specifying the consequences of the repeal of a rule that discriminates against women in regard to the grant of a benefit, does so in such a way that the effects of that rule continue after the date of expiry of the period prescribed by the directive for compliance therewith by the member states.

Citations:

C-80/87

European, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.134196

Alastair Menzies v Bundesversicherungsanstalt fur Angestellte: ECJ 26 Jun 1980

Europa Social security for migrant workers – invalidity insurance – calculation of benefits – application by analogy with provisions on insurance for old age and death – calculation of the theoretical and actual amount – supplementary period (‘zurechnungszeit’) – inclusion in the calculation of the theoretical amount – exclusion in the calculation of the actual amount (regulation no 1408/71 of the council, art. 46 (2) (a) and (b)). Although the calculation to be carried out under article 46 (2) (a) of regulation no 1408/71 is intended to give a worker the maximum theoretical amount which he could claim if all periods of insurance had been completed in the state in question, the purpose of the calculation under article 46 (2) (b) is solely to apportion the respective burdens of the benefit between the institutions of the member states concerned in the ratio of the length of the periods of insurance completed in each of the said member states before the risk materialized. It follows that if, in order to evaluate the benefit awarded in the event of premature invalidity or death of the insured person, the legislation of a member state provides that the benefit must be calculated in relation to not only periods of insurance completed by the insured person but also in relation to a supplementary period (‘zurechnungszeit’) equivalent to the interval of the time between the age of the insured person at the time at which the risk materialized and the time at which he reached the age of 55, that supplementary period must also be taken into account in the calculation of the theoretical amount referred to in article 46 (2) (a) but not in the calculation of the actual amount referred to in article 46 (2) (b) of regulation no 1408/71.

Citations:

C-793/79

European, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132956

Directeur regional de la Securite sociale de Nancy v Paulin Gillard et Caisse regionale d’assurance maladie du Nord-Est, Nancy: ECJ 6 Jul 1978

Europa The fact that a provision creating benefits for victims of war or its consequences is inserted in national social security legislation is not by itself decisive in determining that the benefit referred to in the above-mentioned provision is a social security benefit within the meaning of regulation no 1408/71, as the distinction between benefits which are excluded from the field of application of that regulation and benefits which come within it rests entirely on the factors relating to each benefit, in particular its purposes and the conditions for its grant. Article 4 (4) of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the regulation does not apply to benefits for former prisoners of war consisting in the grant, to workers who prove that they underwent a long period of captivity, of an advanced old-age pension, the essential purpose of such benefits being to provide for former prisoners of war testimony of national gratitude for the hardships endured between 1939 and 1945 on behalf of France and its allies and thus granting them, by the provision of a social benefit, a quid pro quo for the services rendered to those states.

Citations:

C-9/78

European, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132589

HOAGM Perenboom v Inspecteur der directe belastingen of Nijmegen: ECJ 5 May 1977

Europa Both article 12 of regulation no 3 and article 13 of regulation no 1408/71 prevent the state of residence from requiring payment, under its social legislation, of contributions on the remuneration received by a worker in respect of work performed in another member state and therefore subject to the social legislation of that state.

Citations:

C-102/76

European, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132501

Brack v Insurance Officer: ECJ 29 Sep 1976

Europa The provision in paragraph 1 of point I (United Kingdom) of annex V to Regulation no 1408/71, far from restricting the definition of the term ‘worker’ as it emerges from clarify the scope of subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph vis-a-vis British legislation. A person who:- was compulsorily insured against the contingency of ‘ sickness ‘ successively as an employed person and as a self-employed person under a social security scheme for the whole working population; – was a self-employed person when this contingency occurred; – at the said time and under the provisions of the said scheme, nevertheless could have claimed sickness benefits in cash at the full rate only if there were taken into account both the contributions paid by him or on his behalf when he was an employed person and those which he made as a self-employed person;

constitutes, as regards british legislation, a ‘worker’ within the meaning of article 1(a)(ii) of regulation no 1408/71 for the purposes of the application of the first sentence of article 22(1)(ii) of that regulation.

Citations:

C-17/76

European, Benefits, Employment

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132425

Argia Pagotto (nee Cossutta) v Office National des Pensions pour Ouvriers (Judgment): ECJ 30 Nov 1967

Europa 1. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – calculation of benefits – application of the system provided for by articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 – the beneficiary’s objective situation to be considered
2. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – system based on insurance periods – amount of retirement pension varying solely according to insurance periods completed – rights to a pension acquired by claimant without aggregation of completed periods – articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 not applicable
3. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – simultaneous determination of pensions not obligatory (regulation no 3, article 28)
4. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – application of the system established by regulation no 3 – guarantee for persons concerned of benefits acquired by virtue of the legislative systems of member states – options granted by such legislation – waiver not required – time for exercising options determined by national legislation (regulation no 3, articles 27 and 28)

Citations:

C-18/67

European, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131848

Bestuur der Sociale Verzekeringsbank v J H van der Vecht (Rec 1967,P 445) (Nl67-432 D 67-462 I 67-408 En67-345 Dk67-411 Gr67-617 P 67-683) (Judgment): ECJ 5 Dec 1967

Europa 1. Community law – uniform interpretation – versions existing in the four community languages to be taken into consideration 2. Free movement of persons – workers – social security – legislation applicable – employment and residence of beneficiaries in the territory of different member states – conveyance between the country of residence and country of employment – social security subject to the legislation in force in country of employment (regulation no 3, article 12) 3. Free movement of persons – workers – social security – legislation of member states other than that in which the workers are employed – legislation involving an increase in charges borne by workers without any corresponding advantage – inapplicability (regulation no 3, article 12) 4. Free movement of persons – workers – social security – administrative commission within the meaning of article 43 of regulation no 3 – courts and tribunals not bound by its decisions taken in pursuance of article 43 (a) of regulation no 3 5. Free movement of persons – workers – social security – legislation applicable – beneficiaries under article 13(a) of regulation no 3 (in the wording existing prior to the introduction of regulation no 24/64) 6. Free movement of persons – workers – social security – legislation applicable – residence of beneficiaries and registered office of undertaking by which they are employed in the territory of a member state other than that in which the work is carried out – probable duration of this employment within the meaning of article 13(a) of regulation no 3 (in the wording existing prior to the introduction of regulation no 24/64) 1. The need for a uniform interpretation of community regulations prevents the text of a provision from being considered in isolation, but in cases of doubt requires it to be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other three languages. 2. A worker who is employed in the territory of one member state but who resides in the territory of another member state and who is conveyed at his employer’s expense between his place of residence and his place of employment remains subject to the legislation of the former state by virtue of article 12 of regulation no 3, even as regards that part of the journey which takes place in the territory of the state in which he resides and in which the undertaking is established. 3. Article 12 of regulation no 3 prohibits a member state other than that in whose territory a worker is employed from applying its social security legislation to such worker where to do so would lead to an increase in the charges borne by wage-earners or their employers, without any corresponding supplementary protection by way of social security. 4. Decisions taken by the administrative commission in pursuance of article 43(a) of regulation no 3 are not binding on national courts or tribunals. 5. Article 13(a) of regulation no 3, as worded prior to the introduction of regulation no 24/64, applies to a worker who is engaged solely for employment in the territory of a member state other than that in which the establishment to which he is normally attached is situated, in so far as the probable duration of his employment in the territory of the former state does not exceed twelve months. 6. The expression ‘ the probable duration of their employment ‘ used in article 13(a), as worded prior to the introduction of regulation no 24/64, refers to the duration of the employment of each individual worker.

Citations:

C-19/67

European, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131849

Caisse Regionale De Securite Sociale Du Nord v Goffart (Judgment): ECJ 30 Nov 1967

Europa 1. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – insurance – benefit – aggregation and calculation pro rata – calculation of a pension the right to which is conferred in several member states but which is paid in one state only (regulation no 3, article 28(1)(b) and (f)) 1. Article 51 is intended to confer on a migrant worker the benefit arising from the community regulations without however diminishing the rights which he would have had if those regulations had not been applied. This objective would be disregarded if the worker were obliged, in order to avail himself of the freedom of movement which is guaranteed to him, as a result of the entry into force of the community regulations, to suffer the loss of rights already acquired in one of the member states under that state’s own legislation. 2. Article 28(1)(f) of regulation no 3 of the EEC applies both to cases in which the person concerned does not satisfy the conditions required for the payment of benefit and to cases in which he does not satisfy the conditions for conferment of the right to such benefit. A migrant worker whose rights to an old-age pension have been calculated in accordance with the legislation of two member states under the provisions of article 28(1)(a) and (b) of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers but to whom payment of the fraction of the pension payable by one of them has been suspended, is entitled to obtain from the social security institution of the other member state an amount of pension calculated solely in accordance with the legislation of that state and taking account of the insurance periods completed under that legislation.

Citations:

C-22/67

European, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131851

Office national des pensions pour ouvriers v Marcel Couture (Judgment): ECJ 12 Dec 1967

Europa Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – calculation of benefits – application of the system provided for by articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 – the beneficiary’s objective situation to be considered. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – system based on insurance periods – amount of retirement pension varying solely according to insurance periods completed – rights to a pension acquired by claimant without aggregation of completed periods – articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 not applicable. Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – simultaneous determination of pensions not obligatory (regulation no 3, article 28). Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – application of the system established by regulation no 3 – guarantee for persons concerned of benefits acquired by virtue of the legislative systems of member states – options granted by such legislation – waiver not required – time for exercising options determined by national legislation (regulation no 3, articles 27 and 28).

Citations:

C-11/67

European, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131840

Yale v South Lanarkshire Council: OHCS 18 May 1998

When assessing capital for purposes of providing long term care in residential or Nursing home, a local authority may include notional capital of home given away more than six months previously, in this case in return for a life interest.

Citations:

Times 18-May-1998

Statutes:

National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2977) 25

Benefits, Health, Local Government, Scotland

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90651

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.

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Benefits, Damages

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90577

Wakefield v Secretary of State for Social Security and another: CA 24 Feb 2000

A fireman paying child support retired after being injured. He received a pension in two parts. Both were included as income for the calculation of child support. He claimed that the injury pension should be excluded.
Held: He failed. The court said that the injury pension was not a payment of damages for personal injuries, not being calculated by reference to any loss of earnings, or expenses arising from the injury. The way such payments were viewed under tax law was not relevant.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-2000, Times 01-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90236

Szrabjer and Clarke v United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Jun 1998

The applicants were denied the earnings-related element of their pensions while they were in prison, pursuant to s.113(1)(d) of the 1992 Act which I have set out. They claimed violations both of Article 1P, and of Article 14 read with Article 1P. The Commission declared the complaints inadmissible. It held (referring to Gaygusuz) that the earnings-related pension amounted to a pecuniary right for the purposes of Article 1P; however its being withheld from the applicants while they were in prison could be considered (as the government contended) as being in the public interest. Accordingly the complaint of a violation of Article 1P simpliciter was manifestly ill-founded.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jun-1998, 27004/95, 27011/95

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 1 Article 1

Cited by:

Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89670

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jammeh; Regina v Same Ex Parte Bajraktari; Similar: QBD 11 Sep 1997

The policy of not allowing asylum seekers to have work permits could not continue alongside the withdrawal of benefits and is ultra vires the powers of the Secretary of State.

Citations:

Times 11-Sep-1997

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88637

Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Same Ex Parte Kelly: HL 11 Jul 1996

The claimant sought to challenge a refusal of the Housing Authority to pay housing benefit. The Secretary of State had made the relevant Regulations determining eligibility for benefits. If the challenge were successful, the Secretary of State would be affected financially by reason of his obligation to pay sums to the Authority.
Held: The Secretary of State is not to be made party to judicial review proceedings even though he would be the ultimate payer. Though a party directly affected by the claim may be joined as an interested party, Lord Keith said: ‘That a person is directly affected by something connotes that he is affected without the intervention of any intermediate agency. In the present case, if the applications for judicial review are successful the Secretary of State will not have to pay housing benefit to the applicants either directly or through the agency of the local authority. What will happen is that up to 95% will be added to the subsidy paid by the Secretary of State to the local authority after the end of the financial year. The Secretary of State would certainly be affected by the decision, and it may be said that he would inevitably or necessarily be affected. But he would in my opinion, be only indirectly affected by reason of his collateral obligation to pay subsidy to the local authority.’ The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on such judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.
The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.

Judges:

Lord Keith

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1103

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court O 53 r593)

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Rent Officer Service and Another Ex Parte Kelly CA 18-Apr-1995
The Secretary of State was not entitled to be served with notice of all Judicial Review applications on benefits. He was not sufficiently directy connected, . .

Cited by:

Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Cited – Nemeti and Others v Sabre Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Dec-2013
The court considered the power of courts to allow substitution of a new party after the expiration of the limitation period. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Administrative, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87193

Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Rent Officer Service and Another Ex Parte Kelly: CA 18 Apr 1995

The Secretary of State was not entitled to be served with notice of all Judicial Review applications on benefits. He was not sufficiently directy connected,

Citations:

Ind Summary 08-May-1995, Times 18-Apr-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Same Ex Parte Kelly HL 11-Jul-1996
The claimant sought to challenge a refusal of the Housing Authority to pay housing benefit. The Secretary of State had made the relevant Regulations determining eligibility for benefits. If the challenge were successful, the Secretary of State would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87192

Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council ex parte Sarhangi: QBD 9 Dec 1998

Where someone entered the UK with permission but overstayed, was imprisoned and ordered to be deported, but could not for some reason leave despite being willing, that person was not dis-entitled to receive residential assistance under the Act.

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-1998

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Benefits

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87106