Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte B and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants: CA 27 Jun 1996

The Secretary of State had introduced regulations which excluded the statutory right to payment of ‘urgent case’ benefits for asylum seekers who had not claimed asylum immediately upon arrival, or whose claims for asylum had been rejected, and who were awaiting appeal.
Held: Leaving asylum applicants without benefits defeated the purpose of the asylum laws. The Regulations were quashed. Parliament cannot have intended a significant number of genuine asylum seekers to be impaled on the horns of so intolerable a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status, or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution. Non-asylum-seeking immigrants had since 1980 invariably been admitted subject to the condition of ‘no recourse to public funds’ and, more importantly, unlike asylum seekers, can in any event return to their country of origin.
Neill LJ, Simon Brown LJ
Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Times 27-Jun-1996, [1997] 1 WLR 275, [1996] 4 All ER 385, [1996] EWCA Civ 1293
Bailii
Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 21, Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Regulations 1996
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina (on the Application of Husain) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 5-Oct-2001
New regulations created a system under which applicants for asylum could be deprived of all benefits on the decision of an asylum support adjudicator. That person was appointed by the Home Secretary, and it was alleged was not impartial. It was . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte F S Salem Admn 11-Dec-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him asylum. The decision had been made and his benefits stopped, but he was not given any detail of the notice for several months.
Held: The decision did appear to have been made and . .
CitedFathi Saleh Salem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 6-Mar-1998
The Secretary of State having decided against an application for asylum could direct non-payment of benefits although he would hear representations.
Held: Regulation 70(3A)(b)(i) defines a date by reference to the recording by the Secretary of . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
CitedRegina v Westminster City Council ex parte A, London Borough of Lambeth ex parte X and similar CA 17-Feb-1997
This was an appeal from orders of certiorari quashing the decisions of three local authorities refusing to provide accommodation for the respondents, four asylum seekers, whose applications for asylum were presently being considered by the Secretary . .
CitedK v London Borough of Lambeth CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed against refusal of judicial review. She had entered the UK, and applied for asylum. She was then found to have contracted a marriage of convenience, and thus become ineligible for support. She appealed and now sought housing . .
CitedKola 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 . .
CitedM, 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 . .
CitedUnison, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor SC 26-Jul-2017
The union appellant challenged the validity of the imposition of fees on those seeking to lay complaints in the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The fees were discriminatory and restricted access to justice.
The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 March 2021; Ref: scu.87771