Category: Benefits

Martin v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 27 Nov 2009

The claimant appealed against refusal of his claim for income support. He owned property in France which had been counted to disallow his entitlement for the capital resources. Under French law the property would have been counted as subject to a trust depriving him of any beneficial interest.
Held: The appeal failed. The house had been placed in his name in order to avoid French inheritance taxes. That could not be left out of the putative implied trust. The 1987 Act produced a similar consequence.
Lord Justice Mummery, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Elias
[2009] EWCA Civ 1289, Times 17-Feb-2010, [2010] AACR 9, [2010] WTLR 671
Bailii
Recognition of Trusts Act 1987
England and Wales
Cited by:
Judgment – Martin v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Permission to Appeal) CA 27-Nov-2009
Whether French law should be treated as the applicable law for a putative trust arising between parties domiciled in England, but relating to immovable property in France, because, in making the arrangements which give rise to the putative trust, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.381580

Regina v Preston Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Moore: CA 1975

References: [1975] 1 WLR 624
Coram: Lord Denning MR
Ratio: Lord Denning MR observed that the courts should leave the tribunals to interpret the Supplementary Benefits Act in a broad reasonable way, according to the spirit and not the letter. To uphold the purposes of judicial review the ‘record is generously interpreted’.

Last Update: 04 April 2017
Ref: 442732

The Queen v The Inhabitants of Barnsley; 12 May 1849

References: [1849] EngR 628, (1849) 12 QB 193, (1849) 116 ER 840
Links: Commonlii
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 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. I.