Secretary 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 in his exclusion from benefit. His appeal was allowed, and the Secrretay of State now appealed in turn.
Held: The important definition was ‘dwelling occupied as the home’ The scheme of Regulations was not drafted with any consistency, and the court could only look to the regulations themselves. The claimant used both houses as his home, and construing the regulations in a common sense way, the appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Mance, And Mr Justice Nelson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1111, Times 05-Sep-2003, Gazette 02-Oct-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Jobseekers Act 1995 13(1), Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 107(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHinchy 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.185305