Category: Benefits

MM v WL Clinic and Another: UTAA 23 Nov 2015

Mental Health : All – whether for the purposes of Article 5 a restricted patient who has the capacity to do so can give a valid consent to the terms of a conditional discharge that, when it is implemented, will on an objective assessment create a deprivation of the patient’s liberty.
Held: there was power to impose a condition of compliance with a care package, provided that the patient had the capacity to consent to it and did consent

Charles J
[2015] UKUT 644 (AAC), [2016] MHLR 198
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Justice v MM CA 29-Mar-2017
Power of FTT to deprive patient of liberty
Two patients who had been confined to a secure hospital, appealed against orders which would continue to restrict their liberty upon being conditionally released. The parties now disputed the jurisdiction of the FTT to make such an order.
At UT – Secretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .
At UTAA – Welsh Ministers v PJ SC 17-Dec-2018
A patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may be released from compulsory detention in hospital subject to a community treatment order (CTO). The question arising on this appeal is whether a patient’s responsible clinician (may . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.556086

LA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) (Tribunal Procedure and Practice (Including UT) : Statements of Reasons): UTAA 16 Oct 2014

The First-tier Tribunal’s initiative of including summary reasons on decision notices is commended.
But consistency between summary reasons and those in any subsequent statement of reasons is required. Otherwise, the reasons will be inadequate.
A Tribunal gave inadequate reasons, amounting to an error of law, because its decision notice said it placed ‘particular reliance’ on a medical report that its subsequent statement of reasons rejected.

Mitchell UTJ
[2014] UKUT 482 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539091

SB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (BB) (Bereavement and Death Benefits : Bereavement Payments): UTAA 22 Oct 2014

The claimant made a claim for bereavement benefit on 22 May 2013 following the death of the deceased on 11 March 2012. She appealed through her representative against the decision that she was not entitled to bereavement benefit because the marriage between the deceased and the claimant on 7 January 1986 (in Sairi in the Kotli District of Azad Kashmir and which had resulted in the birth of three children) could not be accepted as valid for social security purposes and accordingly bereavement benefit was not payable to her

West UTJ
[2014] UKUT 495 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Benefits, Family

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539097

LA and Others v Secretary of State for Defence (WP) (War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation : War Pensions – Entitlement): UTAA 22 Oct 2014

UTAA War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation : War Pensions – Entitlement
(1) These appeals were heard over 10 days and involved the consideration of a large amount of documents, authorities and arguments. They relate to claims made under Article 41 of the Naval Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006 (the SPO) based on the impact on the claimants of the British atomic tests carried out in the 1950s and early 1960s
(2) Although the reasons for my decision that follow are lengthy their kernel can be stated shortly and I hope that such a statement will assist the reader to follow them.
(3) At the heart of the appeals are the issues whether the FTT applied the test set by Article 41(5) of the SPO correctly and further or alternatively adequately explained how they had done so.
(4) That test (the Article 41(5) test) is:
Where, upon reliable evidence, a reasonable doubt exists whether the conditions set out in paragraph (1) are fulfilled, the benefit of that reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant.
(5) In short I conclude that:
i. this test places an onus on the claimant to establish by evidence that is not fanciful or worthless (and so reliable) possibilities that he asserts found the existence of that doubt,
ii. the decision maker must carry forward:
(a) such possibilities, and
(b) matters about which he has no reasonable doubt,
and so the ingredients of the claimant’s case into the judgmental or weighing exercise of deciding whether the Article 41(5) test is satisfied,
iii. that judgmental exercise involves an evaluation of the respective cases of the parties by reference to all of the competing evidence and argument and thus on that basis:
(a) the relative strengths and weakness of those cases,
(b) their ingredients and so the possibilities they advance, and the matters they rely on (including those about which they assert the decision maker can have no reasonable doubt),
iv. that judgmental exercise may come into play at the first stage of the process as an evaluation of the evidence and arguments advanced by the Respondent may at that stage be taken into account in determining what is or is not a possibility to be carried forward or what matters the decision maker has no reasonable doubt about, and
v. this is not a rigid approach but importantly it is based on the identification and evaluation of possibilities and effective certainties and it is not based on findings of fact made on the balance of probabilities that are thereafter treated as established facts (or effective certainties) or an approach based on which expert evidence is preferred.
(6) I conclude that the FTT erred in law by not applying that approach because they did not so identify possibilities but applied an approach to the ingredients of the claimants’ cases that was based on findings made applying the normal civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) or a similar standard for example by preferring the evidence of one expert to another as opposed to determining whether the evidence they so rejected raised a possibility that needed to be carried forward in the decision making process.
(7) If contrary to my view the FTT did not so err in law I conclude that on a generous reading of their decision they have erred in law by failing to adequately explain how they reached their decisions on a proper application of the Article 41(5) test.

Charles J CP
[2014] UKUT 477 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539090

KH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) (Employment and Support Allowance : Post 28311 Wca Activity 5: Manual Dexterity): UTAA 10 Oct 2014

UTAA Employment and Support Allowance : Post 28311 Wca Activity 5: Manual Dexterity
Appeal with the permission of an Upper Tribunal Judge from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. That decision dismissed the claimant’s appeal from a decision that the claimant’s existing award of incapacity credits and income support did not qualify for conversion into an award of employment and support allowance (ESA) because she did not have limited capability for work.

Mark HHJ
[2014] UKUT 455 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539089

SKG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (JSA): UTAA 24 Sep 2014

Job Seekers Allowance – Claims and Payments : Late Claim: Other Benefits – The prescribed time for claiming cannot be extended (or ‘backdated’). This is because the Appellant does not satisfy the prescribed conditions laid down in regulation 19(4) and (5) or 19(6) and 19(7) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987.

[2014] UKUT 430 (AAC)
Bailii
Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 19
England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539070

ILH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) (Employment and Support Allowance : Income-Related ESA): UTAA 21 Oct 2014

UTAA Employment and Support Allowance : Income-Related ESA – The claimant’s appeal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside and, subject to there being any further issue as to the claimant’s financial position, there is substituted a decision that the claimant is entitled to employment and support allowance from 26 August 2011 at a rate equal to the amount of her applicable amount, which includes not only the support component but also the enhanced disability premium.

[2014] UKUT 480 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539087

Secretary of State v MS and Inverclyde Council: UTAA 4 Sep 2014

UTAA Housing and Council Tax Benefits : Payments That Are Eligible for HB – The Secretary of State’s appeal is allowed.
The decision of the Greenock First-tier Tribunal of 8 October 2013 is set aside.
That decision is remade as follows:
The decision of Inverclyde Council of 14 March 2013 is confirmed.

[2014] UKUT 465 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539067

Tilley, Regina v: CACD 20 Jul 2009

The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a charge against the defendant of allowing another to fail to give prompt notification of a change of circumstances. The recorder had rules that ‘allow’ required some positive act from the defendant.
Held: The appeal failed. The offence required the defendant to have had some active involvement in the failure to notify. It was the defendant’s partner’s obligation to notify, not the defendant’s. The court referred to a statement in the House when the bill was proposed supporting this view.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, Mr Justice King and Judge Moss, QC
[2009] EWCA Crim 1426, Times 05-Aug-2009, [2010] 1 WLR 605, (2009) 173 JP 393, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 31
Bailii
Social Security Administration Act 1992 111A(1B), Social Security Fraud Act 2001
England and Wales

Crime, Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.365625

Charlton v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 6 Feb 2009

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a regulation designed to identify the circumstances in which a benefit claimant may be treated as incapable of work on the grounds that he would be a substantial risk to his own or another’s health, were he found capable of work.

Pill LJ, Lloyd LJ, Moses LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 42
Bailii
Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/311) 27(b)
England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.280492

Cushnie, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: Admn 5 Nov 2014

The claimant challenged by judicial review regulation 11(c) of the 2011 Regulations, which excluded some asylum applicants from NHS care free of charge. He said that this amounted to discrimination for his disability.

Singh J
[2014] EWHC 3626 (Admin)
Bailii
National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2011 11(c)

Health, Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538311

Van Den Berg and Giesen: ECJ 26 Mar 2019

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Article 13, paragraph 2 – Minor professional activities not exceeding a certain threshold in terms of hours or income in a Member State other than Member State of residence – Applicable legislation – Refusal of the granting of family allowances and reduction of old-age pension by the Member State of residence – Restriction on the free movement of workers – Article 17 – Agreement between two Member States providing, in the interest of certain categories of persons or of certain persons, an exception to the provisions of Article 13

C-95/18, [2019] EUECJ C-95/18_O, ECLI:EU:C:2019:252
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – Van Den Berg and Giesen ECJ 19-Sep-2019
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Article 13 – Applicable legislation – Resident of a Member State falling within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Benefit relating to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.664735

Franzen And Others v Raad van bestuur Social verzekeringsbank: ECJ 10 Sep 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Preliminary ruling – Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 13, paragraph 2, and 17 – Occasional work in a Member State other than the State of residence – Applicable law – Refusal family allowances and reduce the age pension by the State of residence – Restriction of free movement of workers

Maciej Spunar AG
C-382/13, [2014] EUECJ C-382/13 – O, [2015] EUECJ C-382/13
Bailii, Bailii
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 13(2) 17

European, benefits

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536714

Ministerstvo prace a socialnich veci v B: ECJ 11 Sep 2014

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – National legislation applicable – Determination of the competent Member State for the purpose of granting a family benefit – Situation in which a migrant worker and her family live in a Member State in which their centre of interest is located and family benefit has been paid – Application for family benefit in the Member State of origin after entitlement to benefits in the Member State of residence has expired – National legislation of the Member State of origin providing that such benefits are to be granted to any person registered as permanently resident in that State

C-394/13, [2014] EUECJ C-394/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2199
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536549

Casa Judeteana Pensii of Cluj vBalazs: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Social security for migrant workers – Retirement benefits – Applicability of social security agreements between Member States – Refusal by the authorities of a Member State to grant retirement benefits for periods of employment on its territory for a returnee home of another member on the basis of regulations of the Union State

Mr Melchior Wathelet
C-401/13, [2014] EUECJ C-401/13 – O, ECLI: EU: C: 2014, 2161, [2015] EUECJ C-401/13
Bailii, Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536484

Bland v Chief Supplementary Benefit Officer: CA 1983

(Orse R(SB) 12/83)) The commissioner refused had leave to appeal against a decision of the Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunal.
Held: No appeal lay to it against a decision of a Commissioner refusing leave to appeal from a decision of an appeal tribunal. Sir John Donaldson MR, referring to s. 14 of the Social Security Act 1980, said: ‘I would accept that in a sense the grant or refusal of leave to appeal to the Commissioner is a decision, just as in Ex parte Stevenson [1982] 1 QB, 609 it was accepted that the grant or refusal of leave to appeal was an order of the High Court, but it is not the kind of decision which, in my judgment, s.14 contemplate.’ and ‘If necessary, the applicant should seek judicial review’
Kerr LJ agreed that any remedy ‘can only be sought by means of judicial review and not by appeal to this court.’

Sir John Donaldson MR, Sir Sebag Shaw, Kerr LJ
[1983] 1 WLR 262, [1983] 1 All ER 537
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bland v Chief Supplementary Benefit Officer SSCS 1-Dec-1982
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a ruling of the Social Security Commissioner. The tibunal was asked if the Court of Appeal any jurisdiction to give leave to appeal from the refusal of a Social Security Commissioner to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Roche v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The claimant had been exposed to harmful chemicals whilst in the Army at Porton Down in 1953. He had wished to claim a service pension on the basis of the ensuing personal injury, but had been frustrated by many years of the . .
Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Benefits

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.235392

MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 31 Jul 2014

The appellant, a male to female transsexual, had remained married to her wife despite having the right to have the marriage annulled following the 2004 Act. She now appealed against rejection of her claim to a state pension on attaining the age of 60. She had not applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate because she did not wish her marriage to be brought to an end. She relied on the Social Security Directive and on the jurisprudence in the European Court of Justice.
Held: Underhill L J said: ‘The starting-point in considering such a case is that in Richards the ECJ said in terms, at para. 21 of its judgment (p.1195C), that ‘it is for the member states to determine the conditions under which legal recognition is given to the change of gender of a person’. But I accept that it is not possible to stop there. The Court clearly did not intend that member states should have carte blanche: that would be clear as a matter of principle, but the point is in any event made explicitly at para. 103 of the judgment of the Strasbourg Court in Goodwin v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 664 which is the ultimate source6 of the statement which I have quoted. If the conditions in question were such as to place unjustifiable restrictions on the right to have the acquired gender recognised the Court would no doubt hold that they were unlawfully discriminatory. The question in the present case is whether the requirement in section 4 of the Act that any subsisting marriage be annulled prior to the issue of a full gender reassignment certificate is unjustifiable.’

Maurice Kay VP CA, Aikens, Underhill LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1112, [2014] WLR(D) 355, [2014] ICR 1129
Bailii, WLRD
Gender Recognition Act 2004, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, Council Directive 79/7/EEC, Equality Act 2010
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Carpenter v The Secretary of State for Justice Admn 27-Feb-2015
The claimant, a post-operative male-to-female transsexual person, said that section 3(3) of the 2004 Act was incompatible with her Human rights after refusal of a gender recognition certificate.
Held: The application failed. The provision of . .
At CA – MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 5-Jul-2016
The court was asked about the age at which entitlement to a pension began for someone of transgender.
Held: The court was divided, and the issue was referred to the European Court of Justice. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Discrimination, European

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535453

Van Den Berg and Giesen: ECJ 19 Sep 2019

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Article 13 – Applicable legislation – Resident of a Member State falling within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Benefit relating to old-age insurance or family allowance scheme – Member State of residence and Member State of employment – Refused

[2019] EUECJ C-95/18, C-95/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:767
Bailii
European
Citing:
Opinion – Van Den Berg and Giesen ECJ 26-Mar-2019
(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Article 13, paragraph 2 – Minor professional activities not exceeding a certain threshold in terms of hours or income in a Member . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.670450

National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot Firers, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 1 May 2003

Pitchford J
[2003] EWHC 607 (Admin)
Bailii
Social Security Contributions Benefit Act 1992 108
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot Firers, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Costs) Admn 1-May-2003
. .

Cited by:
See Also – National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot Firers, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Costs) Admn 1-May-2003
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Personal Injury

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.185349

Dhahbi v Italy: ECHR 8 Apr 2014

ECHR Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Refusal to grant welfare benefits to foreign nationals: violation
Article 14
Discrimination
Facts – At the material time the applicant was a Tunisian national who had entered Italy on a lawful residence and work permit. In 2001 he applied for a family allowance, explaining that even though he did not hold Italian nationality, as required by the relevant legislation, he was entitled to the allowance under the association agreement between the European Union (EU) and Tunisia. Following the rejection of his application, the applicant lodged an appeal. He sought a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on whether, under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, a Tunisian worker could be refused the family allowance in question. His appeals to the court of appeal and Court of Cassation were dismissed.
Law – Article 6 – 1: National courts whose decisions were not amenable to appeal under domestic law were required to provide reasons based on the exceptions laid down in the case-law of the CJEU for their refusal to refer a preliminary question to that court on the interpretation of EU law. They should therefore set out their reasons for considering that the question was not relevant, or that the provision of EU law in question had already been interpreted by the CJEU, or that the correct application of EU law was so obvious as to leave no room for reasonable doubt.
Since no appeal lay against its decisions under domestic law, the Court of Cassation was required to give reasons for its refusal to refer the preliminary question. However, it had not referred to the applicant’s request for a preliminary ruling or to its reasons for considering that the question raised should not be referred to the CJEU. Therefore, the reasons given in the judgment at issue shed no light on whether this question was considered as irrelevant or as relating to a clear provision or to one which had already been interpreted by the CJEU, or had simply been ignored. Moreover, the reasoning of the Court of Cassation did not refer to the CJEU’s case-law. This finding was sufficient to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 6 – 1 of the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimity).
Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8: There was no doubt that the applicant had been treated differently from EU workers who, like him, had large families. Unlike such workers, he had not been entitled to the family allowance in question. Moreover, the refusal to grant him this allowance had been exclusively based on his nationality, because it had not been alleged that the applicant did not fulfil the other legal conditions for entitlement to the social welfare benefit in question. Manifestly, therefore, owing to a personal characteristic, he had received worse treatment than other individuals in a similar situation. As to whether, at the material time, there had been an objective and reasonable justification for such treatment, the applicant had held a lawful residence and work permit for Italy and was insured with the National Institute of Social Security, to which he had been paying contributions in the same way and on the same basis as EU workers. His residence in Italian territory had not therefore been only for a short-term stay or in breach of immigration legislation, and he consequently did not belong to the category of individuals who generally failed to contribute to the funding of public services and about whom a State could have legitimate reasons for restricting recourse to expensive public services – such as the national insurance, public allowance and healthcare programmes. As to the ‘budgetary reasons’ advanced by the Government, even though protecting the State’s budgetary interests was a legitimate aim of the impugned difference in treatment this aim could not in itself justify the said difference. Regarding the reasonable balance of proportionality that had to be struck between the above-mentioned legitimate aim and the means employed, nationality was the only distinguishing criterion used. The Court reiterated that only very weighty considerations could induce it to regard a difference in treatment exclusively based on nationality as compatible with the Convention. Under these circumstances, notwithstanding the national authorities’ wide margin of appreciation in the social security field, the argument advanced by the Government was insufficient to establish a reasonable balance of proportionality making the impugned difference of treatment compatible with the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 9,416.05 in respect of pecuniary damage.

17120/09 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 719
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533839

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 rights, and were therefore possessions within the Convention.
Held: It was difficult to distinguish the appellant’s case from the position in Corner, which had already been rejected in the European Court of Human Rights. The decision to exclude such pensioners from the increase in benefits was a political decision, being an allocation of resources affecting foreign relations. It was not a judicial decision. As to what constituted discrimination: ‘[I]s the basis for the treatment of the complainant as against the chosen comparators based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language . . .. or other status within the meaning of Art. 14?’

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Times 24-May-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002, [2002] EWHC 978 (Admin), [2002] 3 All ER 994
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 14 First Protocol Art 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Corner v United Kingdom ECHR 1984
The Commission considered a complaint as to the UK government’s failure to pay an uprated pension to an applicant who had emigrated to South Africa. The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s complaint that the failure to pay . .
Cited – Havard v United Kingdom ECHR 1997
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Isle of Anglesey County Council v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Oct-2003
The claimant council sought re-imbursement from the Secretary of the excess housing benefit payments it had made to claimants. The system expected the Council to have made referrals of high rents to rent officers. The respondent had decided that it . .
Cited – Morris, Regina (on the Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 7-Oct-2004
The applicant questioned the compatibility of s185 of the 1996 Act with Human Rights law. The family sought emergency housing. The child of the family, found to be in priority housing need, was subject also to immigration control. Though the matter . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
At first instance – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
At First Instance – Carson and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 4-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) Pensioners who had moved abroad complained that they had been excluded from the index-linked uprating of pensions given to pensioners living in England.
Held: This was not an infringement of their human rights. Differences in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.171264

Carrington v Revenue and Customs: CA 26 Nov 2021

Whether the respondent, Mrs Carrington, was entitled to continue to receive United Kingdom (‘UK’) child benefit when in late August 2011 she left England with her husband and her son (whom I will call T) to live permanently in Spain. The child benefit was payable in respect of T, who was then 11 years old. If Mrs Carrington had remained ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and continued to be responsible for T’s care, she would in the usual way, and absent any material change of circumstances, have been entitled to continue receiving child benefit weekly in respect of T at least until he was 16.

Lady Justice Carr, Lord Justice Lewis And Sir Launcelot Henderson
[2021] EWCA Civ 1724
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Benefits, Child Support

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.670076

Cg/14509/96: SSC 17 Jun 1998

In certain cases, the normal rule, that benefits which might accrue on the death of another are lost if the claimant caused the death, can be set aside. Manslaughter of violent husband.

Gazette 17-Jun-1998
Forfeiture Act 1982
England and Wales
Citing:
applied – Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA 23-Jul-1997
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.78960