Category: Benefits

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Slavin: CA 9 Dec 2011

The court was asked whether the respondent, resident in a specialised care home, was ‘maintained free of charge while undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient . . in a hospital or similar institution under the National Health Service Act 2006’, within the meaning of reg. 12A of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991, so as to be disentitled to receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance for which he was a claimant.

Judges:

Pill, Rcshards, Davis LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1515

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Health Service Act 2006, Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 12A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Health

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.449888

Regina (on the Application of the Personal Representatives of Christopher Beeson) v Dorset County Council and Another: QBD 30 Nov 2001

The Council had provided financial assistance for the care of the claimant’s father before his death in a residential home. Those costs were in part recoverable as a civil debt. His father had given him the house by deed of gift. The regulations provided that the father was to be treated as still possessing property of which he had denuded himself to avoid payment of the charges The local authority sought an equitable charge over the property. The council had misapplied the subjective test, of whether the father had actually known sufficient of the scheme, and the need to test the actual purpose of the gift in the father’s mind. The son said the procedure lacked independence because of the potential conflict of interest and lack of independence of those making the decisions. The statutory scheme is a measure of welfare assistance, but not every part need be, and may not be covered by the Convention. The availability of judicial review was inadequate to correct that defect. There was a breach of the claimant’s article 6 rights, but not under article 14.

Judges:

Mr Justice Richards

Citations:

Times 21-Dec-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 986

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2977)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Yule v South Lanarkshire Council for Judicial Review of A Decision of South Lanarkshire Council SCS 15-Aug-2000
. .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Kathro and Others and Llantwit Fardre Community Council v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council Admn 6-Jul-2001
Local residents sought to challenge the proposed determination of a planning application which involved a private finance initiative. One of the grounds was that the use of a negotiated tendering procedure for the purposes of the PFI was contrary to . .
Appealed to – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Benefits

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.166918

Salih and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 8 Oct 2003

An asylum seeker who was found to be destitute and had failed in his application was entitled to restricted support under the section. The respondent implemented a policy restricting the restriction on the use of the power to those who had some physical impediment preventing movement. The applicant had not been evicted, but had had no financial support for eight weeks.
Held: The policy of not informing potential beneficiaries of the section of its availability was unlawful. There was no justification for relying upon an applicant’s legal representatives to tell him. Such applicants were ex hypothesi destitute, but it was not for the court to say what support should be provided.
Stanley Burnton J said: ‘These considerations lead me to conclude that it is not open to the Home Secretary to decide to refrain from making known his hard cases policy. On principle a policy such as that should be made known to those who may need to avail themselves of it. Leaving aside contexts such as national security, it is in general inconsistent with the constitutional imperative that statute law be made known for the government to withhold information about its policy relating to the exercise of a power conferred by statute.’

Judges:

Stanley Burton J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2273 (Admin), Times 13-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 30-Oct-2013
The Secretary of State appealed against the decision in favour of Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, that the 2011 Regulations, made under section 17A of the 1995 Act, did not comply with the requirements of that section, and (ii) a cross-appeal brought by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.186715

CM v Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: UTAA 7 Oct 2020

Housing Benefit – whether limiting housing benefit to the one-bedroom shared accommodation rate in accordance with reg 13D(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulation 2006 amounted to unlawful disability discrimination contrary to Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights – application of the `manifestly without reasonable foundation’ test – whether proportionality assessment still required.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 285 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.659509

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v FE: CA 18 Oct 2011

The court was asked whether the respondent, a French single parent, is entitled to Income Support. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 2 September 2005 with her young child. She sought and soon obtained employment, but after six months she was made redundant. On 20 June 2006 she claimed, but was ultimately refused, Income Support.

Judges:

Maurice Kay, Moses, LJJ, Baron J

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1403

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.449029

TP AR and SXC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 3 May 2019

Challenge to Universal Credit transitional arrangements as discriminatory against severely disabled claimants.
Held: The claim succeeded.

Judges:

Swift J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1116 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 267, [2019] PTSR 2123

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Welfare Reform Act 2012, Universal Credit Regulations 2013, Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.643821

SL v Westminster City Council and Others: CA 10 Aug 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s rejection of his request for assistance under the 1948 Act. He was a failed asylum seeker, who having been destitute, had become mentally ill.
Held: The applicant’s appeal succeeded. As to the conclusion of the court below on the care and attention issue, Laws LJ said: ‘The judge has, I think, understated the nature of the support provided by the local authority through Mr Wyman. As Mr Knafler submitted, Mr Wyman is doing something for the claimant which he cannot do for himself: he is monitoring his mental state so as to avoid if possible a relapse or deterioration. He is doing it, no doubt, principally through their weekly meetings; but also by means of the arrangements for contact (or the renewal of contact) with the two counselling groups, and with the befriender. It is to be noted that care and attention within the subsection is not limited to acts done by the local authority’s employees or agents. And I have already made it clear that the subsection does not envisage any particular intensity of support in order to constitute care and attention.
I acknowledge that the question is to some extent a matter of impression; and also that the claimant must show that the local authority’s determination was not open to a reasonable decision-maker . . But in my judgment that test is met. The support provided by the local authority to the claimant qualifies as care and attention.’

Judges:

Laws, Richards, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 954, [2011] HLR 48, (2011) 14 CCL Rep 601, [2012] 1 All ER 935, [2012] BLGR 137, [2012] PTSR 574

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – SL, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Council Admn 15-Nov-2010
Application for permission to seek judicial review of a decision in a letter from the Council’s solicitor, to refuse to accommodate the claimant pursuant to duties under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948.
Held: The claim . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – SL v Westminster City Council SC 9-May-2013
The applicant for assistance from the respondent Council under the 1948 Act was a destitute, homeless failed asylum seeker. He had been admitted to hospital for psychiatric care, but the Council had maintained that his condition was part of and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442693

Gottardo v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale: ECJ 15 Jan 2002

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 12 EC and 39(2) EC – Old-age benefits – Social security convention concluded between the Italian Republic and the Swiss Confederation – Refusal to take account of periods of insurance completed by a French national in Switzerland

Citations:

C-55/00, [2002] EUECJ C-55/00

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.167456

SG v HMRC (TC): UTAA 16 May 2011

Tax credits and family credit

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 199 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tax Credits Act 2002, Tax Credits (Claims and Notifications) Regulations 2002

Citing:

Distinguished on facts – Novitskaya v London Borough of Brent and Another CA 1-Dec-2009
The claimant appealed refusal of her claim for arrears of housing benefit.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The claim had been defective in having been made informally, but ‘the distribution of benefits is different from many other areas of civil . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441747

JS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 13 Jul 2011

The claimant, a French woman and qualified teacher, now appealed against rejection of her claim for income support, saying that the defendant had failed to comply with the obligations of the European Citizens Directive designed to allow European Citizens to move freely within the Union. She had been in the late stages of pregnancy and had given up work temporarily.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed.

Judges:

Ward, Stanley Burnton, Black LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 806, [2011] PTSR D51, [2011] 3 CMLR 48

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2004/38/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant had come from France to England, and worked as a teaching assistant. She set out on a course to train as a teacher but became pregnant, gave up the course, and eventually gave up work temporarily. Her claim to Income Support was refused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441630

EBA v Advocate General for Scotland: SC 21 Jun 2011

The appellant had sought to challenge refusal of disability living allowance. Ultimately her request a judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decion was rejected on the basis that the UT, being a court of superior record, was not susceptible to judicial review save in very limited circumstancs.
Held: The appeal failed, though the reasons varied. Unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal are amenable to judicial review in cases which raise some important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reason to be heard. A proper if difficult balance was to be found between the need for finality and the need to for justice.
Lord Hope said: ‘the rule of law . . is the basis on which the entire system of judicial review rests. Wherever there is an excess or abuse of power or jurisdiction which has been conferred on a decision-maker, the Court of Session has the power to correct it: West v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385, 395. This favours an unrestricted access to the process of judicial review where no other remedy is available.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson

Citations:

[2011] STI 1941, [2011] PTSR 1095, 2011 SLT 768, [2011] UKSC 29, UKSC 2010/0206, [2011] 3 WLR 149

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – EBA v The Advocate General for Scotland SCS 10-Sep-2010
(Inner House) The petitioner wished to appeal against refusal of disability living allowance. Her appeal to the first tier tribunal was rejected, and her request to the Upper Tribunal for leave to appeal was refused. When, she then sought leave to . .
Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
At Outer House – EBA, Re Judicial Review SCS 31-Mar-2010
The petitioner claimed disability living allowance. Her claim was refused, and eventually also at the Upper Tribunal, of whose decision she now sought judicial review.
Held: The Upper Tribunal being designated as a court of superior record. . .
See Also – 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 . .
Cited – EY v Secretary of State for The Home Department SCS 12-Jan-2011
Only in very exceptional circumstances should a refusal to grant first orders be made. . .
Cited – Rana, Regina (on The Application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) and Another; MR (Pakistan) v Upper Tribunal Admn 21-Dec-2010
The court was asked ‘Is a decision of a judge of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refusing permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) amenable to judicial review on any . .
Cited – Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further and Higher Education and Another CA 28-Nov-2002
Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.
Cited – Regina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application CA 25-Feb-1957
The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In . .
Cited – Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The House was asked whether an asylum applicant whose original application was determined in Scotland, but his application for leave to appeal rejected in London, should apply to challenge those decisions in London or in Scotland.
Held: Such . .
Cited – Watt v Lord Advocate 1979
Lord President Emslie said: ‘it seems clear that, however much this is to be regretted, the Court Session has never had power to correct an intra vires error of law made by a statutory tribunal or authority exercising statutory jurisdiction. As Lord . .
Cited – West v Secretary of State for Scotland SCS 23-Apr-1992
The petitioner complained that on being moved from his employment at one prison to another, he had been told that his moving expenses would be paid, but that they were not. The respondent said that the terms of his employment were that he was to be . .

Cited by:

Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Benefits

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441295

Kola and Mirzajani v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 21 May 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Parker Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Appeal from – Kola and Another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 28-Nov-2007
The claimant said that the 1987 Regulations were invalid, in making invalid any claim for benefits by an asylum seeker who had not made his application exactly upon entry to the UK.
Held: The appeals were allowed. Section 11 of the 1971 Act is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.197052

Commission v Marcuccio: ECFI 8 Jun 2011

ECFI (Staff Regulations)Appeal – Public service – Officials – Invalidity pension – Appeal said partially formed in the first instance for lack of reasoning in the contested decision – Article 78 of the Staff – Early retirement due to disability – Disability Commission.

Citations:

T-20/09, [2011] EUECJ T-20/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440745

Slough Borough Council v M, Regina (on the Application Of): CA 25 May 2006

The claimant was subject to immigration control. He sought assistance under the 1948 Act on the basis that he suffered HIV. The authority appealed an order requiring them to provide assistance on the basis that he need for medication brought him within the section.
Held: The authority’s appeal was dismissed. Care and attention could extend to the provision of shelter, warmth, food and other basic necessities. If the need was made ‘more acute’ by some other circumstance than mere lack of accommodation and funds, it did not arise ‘solely’ from destitution and the local authority was responsible.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 655, (2006) 9 CCL Rep 438, [2007] LGR 225, [2007] BLGR 225

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Slough Borough Council Admn 27-Apr-2004
The claimant, a Zimbabwean, was subject to immigration control. He was HIV positive, and sought assistance from the authority under the 1948 Act. The authority replied that his needs did not reach such a level as to require assistance under the . .

Cited by:

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

Benefits, Immigration, Local Government

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.242185

Nassery, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Brent: CA 11 May 2011

The court was asked whether the judge was in error or not in refusing to set aside the decision of the respondent local authority, the London Borough of Brent that the appellant was not entitled to support under section 21(1) of the 1948 Act which enables a local authority to provide accommodation for a person in need of ‘care and attention’ for the purposes of that section.

Judges:

Ward, Arden, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 539

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439652

Alabaster v Woolwich Plc, Secretary of State for Social Security: CA 26 Feb 2002

The applicant had left on maternity leave. Before leaving, her salary had been increased, but the increase was not back-dated to any part of the period over which the regulations required her average earnings to be calculated for statutory maternity pay. She asserted discrimination, and unlawful deductions from her wages. Should her case be referred to the European Court? The regulations had sought to incorporate the effect of the Gillespie case into UK law.
Held: The effect of the regulations was unclear, and the question was to be referred to the European Court.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Mummery, And, Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 21, [2002] 1 CMLR 56, [2002] IRLR 420

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (SI No. 1960), Equal Pay Act 1970, Employment Rights Act 1996 13, EU Treaty Art 141, Equal Treatment Directive 75/117/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gillespie and Others v Northern Health and Social Services Board and Others ECJ 13-Feb-1996
Benefits payable in maternity leave must make allowance for a pay increase which applied to other workers whilst employee on leave. . .
Appeal from – M K Alabaster v Woolwich Plc, the Secretary of State for Social Security EAT 7-Apr-2000
The regulations did not properly implement the decision of the European Court which they intended to reflect. When a woman was on maternity leave, and there was a salary award, she should have been entitled to the benefit of that award whether or . .
See Also – Alabaster v Barclays Bank Plc and Another CA 3-May-2005
The claimant sought increased maternity pay. Before beginning her maternity leave she had been awarded a pay increase, but it was not backdated so as to affect the period upon which the calculation of her average pay was based. The court made a . .
At ECJ – Michelle K Alabaster v Woolwich plc,and Secretary of State for Social Security ECJ 30-Mar-2004
Europa Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Pay during maternity leave – Calculation of amount – Whether to include a pay rise.
The claimant had been awarded a pay rise before taking maternity leave. . .

Cited by:

Reference from – Michelle K Alabaster v Woolwich plc,and Secretary of State for Social Security ECJ 30-Mar-2004
Europa Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Pay during maternity leave – Calculation of amount – Whether to include a pay rise.
The claimant had been awarded a pay rise before taking maternity leave. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Benefits, Discrimination, European

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.167705

SS And Others v The United Kingdom (Dec): ECHR 21 Apr 2015

ECHR Article 14
Discrimination
Alleged discrimination in entitlement to social security benefits of prisoners in psychiatric care compared to other persons detained for psychiatric treatment: inadmissible
Facts – Under the relevant domestic legislation prisoners were not entitled to social security benefits while serving a prison sentence, including during any periods they were required to spend in psychiatric hospital pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983. Conversely, persons not sentenced to a term of imprisonment but who were detained for psychiatric treatment either as civil patients under section 3 of the 1983 Act or as an alternative to prison under section 37 of the Act (‘section 37 patients’) retained their entitlement to benefits.
The applicants were all convicted and sentenced prisoners who had served, or were serving, part of their sentences in psychiatric hospitals under the relevant provisions of the 1983 Act. In their application to the European Court, they complained that denying them the social security benefits that were paid to other patients being treated under the Act was contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: It was undisputed that social security benefits fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the status of prisoner was covered by the term ‘other status’ in Article 14. Article 14 was thus applicable.
(a) Analogous position: The Court reiterated that prisoners did not forfeit their Convention rights in prison, although the manner and extent to which they could enjoy them would inevitably be influenced by the context. Whether or not a prisoner could, for the purposes of Article 14, claim to be in an analogous position to other categories of the population depended on the subject-matter of the complaint. Although the applicants had asserted that the appropriate comparator group in their case was other detained patients, the Court considered that in reality the applicants had significant elements in common both with other patients and other prisoners. While their stay in hospital undoubtedly served a curative purpose, and not a punitive one, as a matter of domestic law they remained under a sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, even if it was accepted that the applicants were in all other respects under the same legal regime as section 37 patients, the difference between the two groups in terms of criminal-law status could not be regarded as insignificant or irrelevant. Although this did not preclude a comparison with section 37, the applicants’ status as prisoners was ‘very relevant’ to the assessment of compliance with the other requirements of Article 14.
(b) Objective and reasonable justification: The Court accepted as being within the respondent State’s broad margin of appreciation, both as a matter of penal and social policy, the decision to apply a general rule disqualifying convicted prisoners from social security benefits. It followed that the aim of the relevant regulations, which was to apply this exclusionary rule consistently and to correct anomalies, could not be said to be manifestly without reasonable foundation. Fully assimilating the categories of serving prisoners and prisoners transferred to a psychiatric hospital for the purposes of social security could not be said to be lacking in justification, but instead fell within the range of permissible choices open to the domestic authorities.
Nor did the Court discern any failure to respect the requirement of proportionality. The exclusion from entitlement to social security benefits was no broader than necessary, being coterminous with the sentence of imprisonment. In the case of a determinate sentence, those detained beyond what would normally have been the date of release had their entitlements restored, placing them on the same footing as other detained patients. Until such time, the applicants’ essential needs, material and medical, were met in any event and they received an allowance to meet their incidental expenses. No different analysis was called for in respect of the two applicants subject to a life sentence who had already served the minimum term imposed on them.
Accordingly, the difference in treatment complained of did not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also Shelley v. the United Kingdom, 23800/06, 4 January 2008, Information Note 104; Clift v. the United Kingdom, 7205/07, 13 July 2010, Information Note 132; and Stummer v. Austria [GC], 37452/02, 7 July 2011, Information Note 143)

Citations:

40356/10 54466/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 520, 54466/10 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 542, 40356/10

Links:

Bailii, Bailii (Summary)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons, Benefits

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.547584

Gingi v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 14 Nov 2001

It is possible that in some circumstances the same enactment may be construed differently according to whether it applies in circumstances covered by a directive. Arden LJ approved the following passage from Bennion: ‘It is legitimate for the national court, in relation to a particular enactment of the national law, to give it a meaning in cases covered by the Community law which is inconsistent with the meaning it has in cases not covered by the Community law. While it is at first sight odd that the same words should have a different meaning in different cases, we are dealing with a situation which is odd in juristic terms.’

Judges:

Arden LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1685, [2002] 1 CMLR 20, [2002] Eu LR 37

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Gingi v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SSCS 14-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – It’s A Wrap (UK) Ltd v Gula and Another CA 11-May-2006
The company was said to have paid dividends unlawfully, in that the directors who were the shareholders had paid themselves dividends knowing that the company had not earned enough to pay them.
Held: Where shareholders had knowledge of the . .
Cited – Hurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.167812

IJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: UTAA 5 Nov 2010

Incapacity benefits – ‘The appeal is allowed. I set aside the decision of the tribunal and also the decision of the decision maker issued on 23 December and I substitute my own decision that the claimant scores 10 points in relation to mental descriptors and therefore continues to be incapable of work and entitled to benefit pursuant to the award dated 1 December 1993.’

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 408 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433587