Hinchy v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 20 Feb 2003

The appellant challenged an order requiring her to repay benefits. She had ceased to become entitled to disability allowance when it expired without renewal, and so also lost the right to a severe disability premium. She did not inform the second office of the change in her circumstances.
Held: There was a system whereby the two offices should have kept each other informed of such changes. There was no finding that she had acted dishonestly. She said she could not fail to disclose a material fact to the respondent which was already known to him. It was reasonable for her to believe that the information in one department would be made known to the other, and therefore there was no need for her to inform the second, and there had been no non-disclosure.


Lord Jusice Aldous Lord Justice Carnwath Sir Denis Henry


Times 24-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 138, Gazette 01-May-2003




Social Security Administration Act 1992 71


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Works and Pensions v Mohammed Miah CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought benefits. He had a large family which could only be housed in two adjacent houses. His claim for benefit was turned down on the basis that the second house was not regarded as his home, and therefore stood as capital, resulting . .
Appeal fromHinchy v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 3-Mar-2005
The applicant had been dependent upon income support, and had then come to receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA). She therefore received additional income support, but the office did not adjust that benefit down when her DLA stopped. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179578