Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission; Butterworth v Supplementary Benefits Commission: 1982

The claimants lived in the same house. The woman had severe injuries, and her male friend had at one time moved into the house to assist her care. She later moved to live with him, leaving her husband. There was no sexual relationship. The commissioner treated them as living together as husband and wife. They appealed.
Held: The absence of reasons in the decision did not necessarily constitute an error of law. In the absence of otrher explanations, the fact that a man and a woman lived in the same house was strong evidence that they lived together as husband and wife. Here the tribunal had addressed the correct issues, and had evidence upon which the finding was based.


Woolf J


[1982] 1 All ER 498


Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 Sch 1 para 3(1)(b)


England and Wales


CitedMountview Court Properties v Devlin 1970
. .

Cited by:

ApprovedG v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction) CA 22-Jun-2000
The issue of whether a respondent to a non-molestation order application was an associated person, was to be construed purposively. The system was designed to afford a swift and accessible procedure. There had been present three of the admirable . .
CitedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.181197