Category: Benefits

SD v Newcastle City Council: UTAA 17 Aug 2010

UTAA The claimant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed. The decision of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne First-tier Tribunal dated 30 January 2009 involved an error on a point of law and is set aside. It is appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to re-make the decision on the claimant’s appeal against Newcastle City Council’s decisions dated 8 November 2007 and 18 December 2007 (Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, section 12(2)(b)(ii)). The decision as re-made is that the appeal is allowed and that the various decisions relevant to the periods identified in the notice of decision dated 6 May 2008 did not as at 18 December 2007 fall to be revised or superseded in respect of the period from 8 December 2006 to 23 September 2007, because the claimant was throughout that period on income support, so that the amount of her capital was to be disregarded for housing benefit and council tax benefit purposes, and that there is on the current state of the decisions no overpayment of housing benefit or excess council tax benefit for that period. In relation to the period from 24 September 2007 to 31 March 2008, where the claimant’s appeal against the decision dated 8 November 2007 that the awarding decision was to be superseded and excess council tax benefit was recoverable was also before the tribunal of 30 January 2009, the decisions under appeal are confirmed except for the amendment of the period of excess council tax to 24 September 2007 to 9 December 2007 (to take account of the subsequent award of housing benefit and council tax benefit with effect from 10 December 2007 made on 14 February 2008). The amount of the consequent excess council tax benefit recoverable from the claimant under regulation 83 of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006 is to be calculated by the Council in accordance with paragraph 18 below. If the result of that calculation cannot be agreed on behalf of the claimant, the case is to be referred back to me or to another judge of the Administrative Appeals Chamber for further decision. I deal in paragraph 20 below with how all that leaves the case for the future.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 306 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.423242

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JS: UTAA 7 May 2010

The claimant french woman had come to England, working as a teaching assistant. She set out to train as a teacher but became pregnant, and gave up work temporarily. She was refused Income Support. Her appeal was allowed, and the Secretary of State now appealed against that order.
Held: His appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 131 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 124(1)(e), Income Support (General) Regulations 1987

Cited by:

At Upper Tribunal – 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

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.423185

Payne and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 26 Jul 2010

The court was asked as to the lawfulness of the Secretary of State making deductions from ongoing social security benefit to recover the overpayment of incapacity benefit and the repayment of a social fund budgeting loan during the moratorium period of a debt relief order.
Held: The Secretary of state could not deduct the sums sought.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2162 (Admin), [2010] BPIR 1389, [2010] ACD 99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 71, Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1988 SI 1988/664, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 138(1)(b), The Social Fund (Applications and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2008, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne and Another CA 14-Dec-2010
Appeal by Secretary of State against judicial review finding unlawful the deductions made from the claimants’ social security benefit allowances after the claimants Debt Relief Order had come to an end.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
At first Instance – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne and Another SC 14-Dec-2011
The appellant sought to recover overpayments of benefits and Social Fund Loans, after the respondent had had a Debt relief order.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal failed. The ‘net entitlement principle’ argued for did not exist. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Insolvency

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.421888

Rydqvist v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 24 Jun 2002

The applicant had applied to the tribunal with regard to his entitlement to job-seeker’s allowance, but withdrew his application before the hearing. The tribunal had nevertheless heard the case and held against him. He appealed that finding. The appeal tribunal said it itself had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Held: There was no discretion to waive requirements which went as to jurisdiction rather than procedure. Once the appeal had been withdrawn, it could not be re-instated. Alternatives existed, but the request to waive a jurisdictional requirement could not succeed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Nelson

Citations:

Times 08-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 947, [2002] 1 WLR 3343, [2002] ICR 1383

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No 1801) 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .
Cited – Essex County Council v Essex Incorporated Congregational Church Union HL 1963
No Power to Grant Jurisdiction By Consent
An attempt was made by the parties to confer jurisdiction upon the Lands Tribunal.
Held: Constitutive jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement or estoppel. A statutory tribunal cannot be given jurisdiction by an earlier mistake, agreement, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.174255

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v FS: UTAA 27 Jan 2010

The decision of the tribunal on 4 10 2005 is set aside. The decision of the Secretary of State of 11 08 2003 is confirmed. The appellant is not entitled to a Social Fund funeral payment in respect of the death of her late son. This is because she was not entitled to any qualifying benefit at the date of claim.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 18 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.410595

Convery v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Feb 2010

FTTTx Industrial injuries disablement benefit – employed earner’s employment – contract of service or contract for services – s8 of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Act 1999 -Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 90 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Act 1999 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408917

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. Judicial review was not available to the applicant since: ‘the decision of the Upper Tribunal under attack in the present case is subject to review only in exceptional circumstances, i.e. on pre-Anisminic grounds (excess of jurisdiction in the narrow sense) or because there has been a breakdown of fair procedure.’

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2010] ScotCS CSOH – 45, [2010] CSOH 45, 2010 SLT 547, 2010 SCLR 345, 2010 GWD 14-253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

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 . .

Cited by:

At Outer House – 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 . .
At Outer House – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Administrative, Benefits

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.406767

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Bhakta: CA 15 Feb 2006

Where the only reason for a person not being entitled to receive income support was that that person had not yet resided in the UK long enough to meet the statutory criteria for entitlement to Income support, but it was clear that the residence would qualify, the respondent had a discretion to make payment of benefit by way of an advance award.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lady Justice Hallett Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

Times 20-Mar-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 65

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.239894

Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State: ECJ 25 May 1971

ECJ The concept of pay as defined in article 119 of the EEC Treaty does not include social security schemes or benefits directly governed by legislation without any element of agreement within the undertaking or the occupational branch concerned, which are obligatorily applicable to general categories of workers or which, within the framework of such a general system established by legislation, relate to certain categories of workers in particular.
This applies especially to retirement pension schemes which give workers the benefit of a legal system, the financing of which, workers, employers and possibly the public authorities contribute in a measure determined less by the employment relationship between the employer and the worker than by considerations of social policy. The part due from the employer in the financing of such schemes does not constitute a direct or indirect payment to the worker; the latter receives the benefits legally prescribed solely by reason of the fact that he fulfils the legal conditions required for their being granted.
Situations involving discrimination resulting from the application of such a scheme are not subject to the requirements of article 119.

Citations:

C-80/70, R-80/70, [1971] EUECJ R-80/70, [1974] 1 CMLR 494, [1971] ECR 445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
see also – Defrenne v Sabena Airlines ECJ 15-Jun-1978
LMA Ms Defrenne was an air hostess employed by SABENA, a Belgian airline company. She brought an action against the airline based on Art.119 [now141] EC. Ms Defrenne claimed that in paying their male stewards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.214131

Revenue and Customs v Ruas: CA 23 Mar 2010

The court was asked whether an obligation arose to pay child benefit for the children of a Portuguese worker resident here but no longer working for his children living in Portugal.
Held: The benefit was payable.

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 291

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Council Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, Social Security, Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 12-May-1998
ECJ A benefit such as the child-raising allowance, which is automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain objective criteria, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tolley (Deceased) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 23-Oct-2013
The Court was asked as to entitlement to receive the care component of disability living allowance when she moved permanently from the United Kingdom to Spain. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked whether the United Kingdom is precluded, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European, Children

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.403480

Wiles v Social Security Commissioner and Another: CA 16 Mar 2010

The court considered one of the last applications for permission to seek judicial review of a Social Security Commissioner’s determination before the transfer of the Commissioner’s jurisdiction to the Upper Tribunal. Mr Eadie, for the Commissioner, submitted that, applying Sivasubramaniam and Cort, judicial review should be restricted to outright excess of jurisdiction and fundamental denials of procedural justice. Alternatively, following this court’s decision in R (Sinclair Gardens Investments Ltd) v Lands Tribunal [2005] EWCA Civ 1305, he submitted that it should be restricted to difficult and unresolved issues of law of general significance. For the claimant, Mr Drabble contended that any material error of law was and ought to be justiciable by way of judicial review.
Held: Dyson LJ said: ‘If the scope of the jurisdiction to grant judicial review in respect of a refusal by a commissioner to grant leave to appeal had not been established for almost 30 years, I would have been inclined to adopt a position somewhere between those contended for Mr Drabble and Mr Eadie. I would reject Mr Eadie’s primary position. I can see no good reason why the court should not have power to grant judicial review of a refusal of leave to appeal in a case which involves a difficult point of law of general importance. It is clearly in the public interest that the court should be able to decide such issues. Accordingly, if exceptional circumstances were the correct test, I would be inclined to include in the category of exceptional circumstances those cases which raise a point of law of general importance (not necessarily circumscribed in the way suggested by Neuberger L.J. in Sinclair Gardens . . But in my judgment, there is considerable force in the submission that the categories of case in which judicial review should in principle lie in respect of a refusal of leave to appeal by a commissioner should not be limited to exceptional circumstances. In Sivasubramaniam it was accepted by the court that the practice of entertaining applications for permission to apply for judicial review of refusals of leave to appeal by the now defunct immigration appeal tribunal (‘IAT’) was justified. The ‘special factors’ justifying this practice were identified at [52]. I accept the submission of Mr Drabble that the nature and functions of the social security commissioners are closer to those of the IAT than to either the county court or the Lands Tribunal. They are an administrative tribunal, frequently called upon to adjudicate on significant legal issues which have far-reaching consequences well beyond the individual case, including important issues of human rights and EU law. I accept that issues such as the right to life and the right not to be tortured are unlikely to arise in a social security case. But a social security case may well involve the right of a claimant to subsistence income and so directly affect their access to the most fundamental necessities of life.
47. It seems to me that there is much to be said for opening the door somewhat wider than Mr Eadie would allow to reflect the fact that (i) issues that arise in social security cases may affect the lives not only of the individual claimant, but of many others who are in the same position, some of whom are among the most vulnerable members of our society; and (ii) the issues may be of fundamental importance to them, sometimes making the difference between a reasonable life and a life of destitution.
For these reasons, if the matter were free from previous authority, I would have been inclined to hold that the door to judicial review should be opened wider than Mr Eadie has submitted, even on his alternative argument. How much wider? In my judgment, there is much to be said for the criteria which the court applies in deciding whether to give permission to appeal for a second appeal. Section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides that no appeal may be made unless it is considered that ‘(a) the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice; or (b) there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.’ It seems to me that this formula would strike a fair balance between the competing considerations which arise where a commissioner refuses leave to appeal.
49. But I do not find it necessary to reach a concluded view on this, since I am persuaded by Mr Drabble that we should not depart from the approach (most clearly and fully articulated in Connolly) that has been established and applied by the courts for more than 25 years.’
Longmore LJ added: ‘I agree with Dyson LJ that the comparatively long line of authority permitting the court to grant judicial review on orthodox grounds of a decision by a Social Security Commissioner to refuse to give permission to appeal to himself from a decision of the SSAT should not be disturbed at this late stage in its existence. Now that the Commissioners have become part of the Upper Tribunal, no doubt the forthcoming decision of this court in Cart will be applicable in future and there may be a shift in the judicial review perspective. If there is, I would warmly endorse Dyson LJ’s view that it might be appropriate to adopt a similar test to that imposed by statute on the Court of Appeal in respect of second appeals.’

Judges:

Sedley, Dyson, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 258

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 25-Apr-2001
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cart, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others CA 23-Jul-2010
The claimant had sought and been refused judicial review of a decision of the SIAC Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunals were designated as courts of superior record, and the court at first instance had said that SIACs specialist procedures and . .
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, Judicial Review

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.402952

Longden v British Coal Corporation: HL 13 Mar 1997

The plaintiff was injured whilst at work in one of the defendant’s collieries. The House considered the deductibility from damages awarded for personal injury of a collateral benefit.
Held: The issue of deductibility where the claim is for loss of pension cannot be properly answered without a clear understanding of the nature of the loss claimed. Periodical payments which had been received on early retirement from a contributory pension scheme, were not to be deducted from damages later payable by an employer, but a part of a lump sum paid on early retirement may be deductible. Prima facie, the only recoverable loss is the net loss.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jan-1998, Times 28-Nov-1997, [1997] UKHL 52, [1997] 3 WLR 1336, [1998] AC 653, [1998] 1 All ER 289

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Evidence Act 1995 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd HL 1988
The plaintiff was injured in an accident at work. His employer was partly responsible. For 13 weeks he received full sick pay in accordance with his contract. He then received half his pre-accident earnings under the permanent health insurance . .
Cited – Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co HL 13-Feb-1880
Damages or removal of coal under land
User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the . .
Cited – Hodgson v Trapp HL 10-Nov-1988
The question was whether the attendance and mobility allowances which were payable to the plaintiff pursuant to statute should be deducted from damages she had received for personal injury.
Held: They should be. Damages for negligence are . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – Smoker v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority HL 1991
Pension benefits were held to be the fruits through insurance of moneys set aside in the past in respect of past work and could not be appropriated by a tortfeasor so as to reduce its liability to compensate the victim. . .
Cited – O’Brien’s Curator Bonis v British Steel Plc 1991
The court can take judicial notice of the Ogden Tables. . .
Cited – Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd CA 1987
The worker had been injured at work. His employer was partly at fault. The employer had a compensation scheme for which it paid, and sought to deduct the payments to the worker from the damages it was to pay. The Court was also invited by the . .
Cited – Bradburn v Great Western Rail Co CEC 1874
The plaintiff had received a sum of money from a private insurer to compensate him for lost income as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Held: He was entitled to full damages as well as the payment from the . .
Cited – Redpath v Belfast and County Down Railway CANI 1947
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. The defendant company sought to bring into account sums received by the plaintiff from a distress fund to which members of the public had contributed. Plaintiff’s counsel were said to having . .
Cited – Hodgson v Trapp HL 10-Nov-1988
The question was whether the attendance and mobility allowances which were payable to the plaintiff pursuant to statute should be deducted from damages she had received for personal injury.
Held: They should be. Damages for negligence are . .
Cited – Dews v National Coal Board HL 1988
The plaintiff miner sought damages for an injury suffered at work.
Held: An employee who had been injured at work could not recover unpaid pension contributions, which had no effect on his pension entitlement, as part of his loss of pay while . .
Cited – Payne v Railway Executive 1951
Disablement pensions, whether voluntary or not, are to be ignored in the assessment of damages. . .
Cited – Larkham v Lynch 1974
The plaintiff had sustained serious injuries and sought damages. One item of special damages was a sum for loss of pension between the age of 60, when he would have retired, and the age of 65, which was the limit of his life expectancy as a result . .
Cited – Paff v Speed 6-Apr-1961
(High Court of Australia) ‘The first consideration is what is the nature of the loss or damage which the plaintiff says he has suffered.’
Damages – Personal injuries – Matters to be considered in reduction of damages – Plaintiff policeman at . .
Cited – Longden v British Coal Corporation CA 1995
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured at work. The defendant sought to set off against the damages to be awarded sums received by way of a collateral benefit.
Held: Roch LJ said: if the plaintiff were not permitted to recover the . .
Appeal from – Longden v British Coal Corporation CA 1995
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured at work. The defendant sought to set off against the damages to be awarded sums received by way of a collateral benefit.
Held: Roch LJ said: if the plaintiff were not permitted to recover the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board HL 5-Jul-2001
When calculating the losses suffered by a victim of crime, the allowance to be made for losses to a retirement pension through having to retire early should have set off against them, the benefits received by way of payments for his ill-health, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages, Benefits

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.135206

Tilianu, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 15 Feb 2010

This case raises issues concerning the right of European Union citizens, who have worked as self-employed workers but have ceased to be in work, to be paid jobseeker’s allowances and crisis payments. The central issue turns on whether there is a practical distinction, for the purposes of obtaining certain benefits, between a worker who, prior to becoming unemployed, has been employed and a worker who has been self-employed.

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 213 (Admin), [2010] 3 CMLR 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, European

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.402537

RD and PM, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 27 Jan 2010

The applicants challenged the difference in the treatment for benefits after release from imprisonment of those transferred to a mental hospital after conviction (particularly post-tarriff lifers) and those detained after arrest but before trial. The changes were introduced by the 2005 Regulations.
Held: The distinction real, but was justified. The question was not where the detainee was detained, but whether he was in the terms of any court order still being punished for his offence.

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 18, Times 01-Feb-2010

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 37, The Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 3360)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.395048

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Moyna: SSCS 31 Jul 2003

Citations:

[2003] UKSSCSC CDLA – 5438 – 1999

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal From – Moyna v The Secretary of State for Social Security CA 27-Mar-2002
The claimant a former civil servant had retired due to ill health, and appealed refusal of disability living allowance. The court did not accept that one could have facts on which different tribunals could properly reach different conclusions about . .
At tribunal – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.197333

A, Regina (on the Application of) v National Asylum Support Service and Another: CA 23 Oct 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1473, [2004] 1 WLR 752, [2004] 1 All ER 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – A, Regina (on the Application of) v National Asylum Support Service and Another Admn 24-Jun-2003
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of A) v National Asylum Support Service, London Borough of Waltham Forest CA 23-Oct-2003
A family of asylum seekers with two disabled children would be destitute without ‘adequate’ accommodation. What was such accommodation?
Held: The authority was under an absolute duty to house such a family. In satisfying such duty, it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.187104

AFMB Ltd v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank: ECJ 16 Jul 2020

(Grand Chamber) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Migrant workers – Social security – Legislation applicable – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Article 14(2)(a) – Concept of ‘person who is a member of the travelling personnel of an undertaking’ – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 13(1)(b) – Concept of ’employer’ – Long-distance lorry drivers normally employed in one or more Member States or States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) – Long-distance lorry drivers who have entered into an employment contract with one undertaking but are in fact subject to the authority of another undertaking established in the Member State where those drivers reside – Determination of which undertaking is the ’employer’

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2020:565, [2020] EUECJ C-610/18, [2020] WLR(D) 417, [2020] ICR 1432

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Benefits

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.658680

Azam v Epping Forest District Council: Admn 8 Oct 2009

The claimant challenged the certificate issued in his prosecution as to the date on which the prosecutor said that sufficient evidence had come into his hands, to commence a prosecution under the 1988 Act.

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3177 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Benefits

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384126

Pedro v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 14 Dec 2009

The claimant, an EU national, came to the UK to join her son. He had worked but became dependent on benefits. She sought payment of the State Pension.
Held: A refusal to pay the pension would dissuade workers from moving around within the EU, and was therefore contrary to EU law and the Citizens Directive. Dependency in the state of origin need not be proved for family members. It was sufficient if, as was alleged here, the dependency arose in the host state.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Sullivan and Lord Justice Goldring

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1358, Times 05-Jan-2010

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Pension Credit Regulations 2002 2(4), State Pension Credit Act 2002 1(2), EC Treaty 18, Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizens’ Directive)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Metock And Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ECJ 25-Jul-2008
ECJ Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State – Family members who are nationals of non-member countries – Nationals of . .
Cited – KG (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-2008
. .
Cited – Minister Voor Vereemdelingenzaken en Integratie v RNG Eind ECJ 5-Jul-2007
ECJ Freedom of movement for persons – Workers Right of residence for a family member who is a third-country national – Return of the worker to the Member State of which he is a national – Obligation for the . .
Cited – Zhu, Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 19-Oct-2004
ECJ (Free Movement of Persons) Right of residence – Child with the nationality of one Member State but residing in another Member State – Parents nationals of a non-member country – Mother’s right to reside in . .
Cited – Yunying Jia v Migrationsverket (Free Movement Of Persons) ECJ 9-Jan-2007
Europa Freedom of establishment Article 43 EC Directive 73/148/EEC National of one Member State established in another Member State Right to residence of a spouse’s parent, the spouse and the parent being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384064

RD and Another, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 31 Oct 2008

This case concerns the question whether post-tariff life prisoners who have been transferred by the Secretary of State from prison to a mental health hospital under powers contained in sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 [‘the 1983 Act’] are entitled to Income Support whilst in such a hospital. It is common ground between the parties that the relevant statutory provisions do not entitle post-tariff lifers to Income Support whilst in prison but the Claimant submits that those provisions are couched in terms which dictate the contrary result whilst in a mental health hospital.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2635 (Admin), [2008] MHLR 352

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Prisons, Benefits

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.277927

McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment: CA 11 Dec 1996

The respondent as a temporary worker was entitled to be treated as an employee of an agency within the contract governing the particular engagement where money was due when the agency went into liquidation. He was therefore able to claim against the respondent as such on that insolvency. A temporary worker might be an employee for each assignment in which he actually works even though he may not be an employee of the agency under a general contract. Waite LJ: ‘There is nothing inherently repugnant, whether to good relations in the workplace or in law, about a state of affairs under which, in an employment agency case, the status of employee of the agency is allocated to a temporary worker in respect of each assignment actually worked – notwithstanding that the same worker may not be entitled to employee status under his general terms of engagement’ and ‘The force of this is not lost in cases where – following what appears to be a common (though potentially confusing) practice – the agency and the temporary worker have committed themselves to standard terms and conditions which are intended to apply both to the general engagement and to the individual stints worked under it. The only result of that fusion is that the same conditions will have to be interpreted from a different perspective, according to whether they are being considered in the context of the general engagement or in the context of a single assignment.’

Judges:

Lord Justice McCowan, Lord Justice Waite, Lord Justice Potter

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1166, [1997] IRLR 353, [1997] ICR 549

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 8122

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment and Another EAT 23-Nov-1994
The applicant was a temporary worker on the books of an employment agency, which went into insolvent liquidation. He claimed that he had a contract of service with the agency. That formed the basis of his application to the Secretary of State under . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas CA 5-Mar-2004
The applicant cleaner sought compensation for unfair dismissal. The issue was whether she was an employee of the respondents, of their client where she did her work, or was not an employee at all. She worked for an agency, who sent her out to . .
Cited – Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority CA 18-Dec-1997
A nurse was employed under a contract, under which there was no mutuality of obligation; she could refuse work and employer need offer none. This meant that there was no employment capable of allowing an unfair dismissal issue to arise.
Sir . .
Cited – Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd, Wandsworth London Borough Council EAT 12-Nov-2002
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of Employee . .
Cited – Cornwall County Council v Prater CA 24-Feb-2006
The claimant worked for the local authority under a series of contracts. The employer denied that she had been continuously employed and there was no ‘irreducible minimum mutual obligation necessary to create a contract of service’. There were times . .
Cited – Drake v Ipsos Mori UK Ltd EAT 25-Jul-2012
drake_ipsosEAT2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a market researcher under a succession of individual assignments. The Employment Judge erred in law in . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Benefits, Insolvency

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.141034

Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 27 Feb 2009

Challenge to defendant’s practice in seeking recovery of overpayments.
Held: The court refused to grant a declaration that the respondent could not use common law or equitable powers to recover over-payment of benefits where the payee had neither misrepresented his position, nor otherwise been at fault.

Judges:

Michael Supperstone QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 341 (Admin), [2009] 3 All ER 633

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Oct-2009
CPAG appealed against a refusal of a declaration that the respondent could use only the 1992 Act to recover overpayment of benefits where there had been neither misrepresentation nor non-disclosure.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the court . .
At First Instance – The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.311766

(Un-named): SSCS 14 Dec 2005

SSCS The agreement pursuant to which the appellant occupies the dwelling identified in the appeal papers is on a commercial basis. Accordingly, regulation 7(1)(a) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1997 does not operate so as to disentitle the appellant from housing benefit.

Citations:

[2005] UKSSCSC CH – 2899 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1997 7(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.237898