The appellant challenged the respondent’s decision to reduce the amount paid to her by way of asylum support benefit by the amount of child benefit she received.
Held: The applicant had failed to make proper disclosure to the court of the facts underlying her case. Since the case had begun, the Coucil had reviewed its policies and uprated the benefits payable. The evidence placed before the court as to the various benefits rates and calculations was weak. It was not possible to say that the method of calculation used by the Council was irrational or inaccurate, and the appeal was dismissed.
Judges:
The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Kay
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 558
Links:
Statutes:
The Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Lloyd’s of London 1993
There is a duty to be performed by those who represent applicants for judicial review to make all appropriate enquiries and to disclose to the court all facts material to the application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Immigration, Judicial Review
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180738