Steane v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another: HL 8 Aug 1996

Since no payments had been made by the Local Authority for care, a care home resident was entitled to claim Attendance Allowance.
Occupant of residential home paying charges himself may get attendance allowance.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Oct-1996, Times 08-Aug-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1195

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSteane and Another v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another CA 19-Dec-1995
Attendance allowance could be granted to a care resident who didn’t apply via the Local Authority Social Services department.
Attendance allowance payable to elderly person on transfer of nursing home into the private sector. . .
See AlsoChief Adjudication Officer and Another v Steane and Another SSCS 24-Jul-1996
. .

Cited by:

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

Benefits

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89522

Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Barry: HL 21 Mar 1997

The House considered the need when assessing community care provision to include considerations of the cost and resources for care. The case concerned a question about the relevance of cost and arose in the context of a duty to make certain arrangements where a local authority is satisfied this is ‘necessary’ in order to meet the ‘needs’ of disabled persons.
Held: (by a majority) On the proper interpretation of the section the local authority is entitled to have regard to its resources when performing this duty. The local authority had merged the two stages into one by providing services in accordance with elaborate ‘eligibility criteria’. What was in issue was whether the authority could lawfully raise the eligibility criteria because of shortage of money. ‘Need’ within the meaning of section 2(1) of 1970 Act is a relative concept and that ‘needs for services cannot sensibly be assessed without having some regard to the cost of providing them. A person’s need for a particular type or level of service cannot be decided in a vacuum from which all considerations of cost have been expelled.’

Judges:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 09-Apr-1997, Times 21-Mar-1997, [1997] AC 584, [1997] UKHL 58, [1997] 2 WLR 459, [1997] 2 All ER 1, (1997) 9 Admin LR 209, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 40, (1997) 36 BMLR 92

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 2(1)

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc QBD 2-Aug-1996
Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case. . .

Cited by:

CitedT (a Minor), In Re 1997 HL 20-May-1998
The Act obliged a local education authority to provide education for children too ill to attend school. The claimant suffered from ME, and received only five hours support, which the authority proposed to reduce in order to save money. The parents . .
Appeal toRegina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc QBD 2-Aug-1996
Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case. . .
CitedRegina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
CitedSavva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 11-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights. . .
CitedMcDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 6-Jul-2011
The claimant, a former prima ballerina, had suffered injury as she grew old. She came to suffer a condition requiring her to urinate at several points during each night. The respondent had been providing a carer to stay with her each night to . .
CitedKM, Regina (on The Application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council SC 31-May-2012
The respondent had assessed the claimant’s annual care needs. He challenged the calculations. The authority had a system which calculated the average needs for support adding a sum to reflect particular critical need. An independent expert had . .
CitedRobson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Salford City Council CA 20-Jan-2015
The appellants, all severely disabled appealed against the refusal of their judicial review of the substantial withdrawal by the Council of a service providing them with transport to local day care facilities. They said that the council had failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86701

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte M etc: CA 17 Feb 1997

The court recognised the potential role of local authorities under section 21(1)(a) in meeting the needs of those seeking asylum and otherwise, but having benefits withheld pending determination of their claims. Asylum seekers who had been excluded from the benefits system are to be supported by the local authority.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Waite, Henry LJJ

Citations:

Times 19-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 3095, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 85, (1998) 30 HLR 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSL v Westminster City Council SC 9-May-2013
The applicant for assistance from the respondent Council under the 1948 Act was a destitute, homeless failed asylum seeker. He had been admitted to hospital for psychiatric care, but the Council had maintained that his condition was part of and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Local Government, Immigration

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86802

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc: QBD 8 Oct 1996

Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits such as income support. The Act should be read so as to disallow a refusal by local authorities to house destitute asylum seekers. Local Authority has residual duty to support destitute asylum applicants who had been refused benefits.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Nov-1996, Times 10-Oct-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 90, (1997) 1 CCLR 85, (1997) 30 HLR 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21 22

Citing:

Appealed toRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Greater Manchester Council ex parte Worch 1988
The court considered to what extent it could look to the form of an Act before it was amended in order to assist it in construing the Act as amended: ‘The original section 21(a) of the [Coroners (Amendment) Act] 1926 is no longer law, since it has . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of A) v National Asylum Support Service, London Borough of Waltham Forest CA 23-Oct-2003
A family of asylum seekers with two disabled children would be destitute without ‘adequate’ accommodation. What was such accommodation?
Held: The authority was under an absolute duty to house such a family. In satisfying such duty, it was . .
Appeal fromRegina 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 . .
CitedVictor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another CA 8-Mar-2000
A teletext page can be a document for gaming licensing purposes. A bookmaker sought to advertise his services via a teletext page. His services were not licensed in this country, but the advertisements were. It was held that despite the . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86806

Regina v Social Security Commissioner, Ex Parte Chamberlain: QBD 7 Jul 2000

On an application to review an earlier incapacity benefit decision, the adjudicating officer or tribunal must first decide if a material change of circumstances existed since the decision, or whether the decision was founded upon some mistake. Only then should he pass on to question whether the ‘all work’ test is satisfied. The distinction between the two stages is clear and fundamental. Only if either limb of the first test applied could the second arise.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 25, 171C

Cited by:

CitedWood v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 31-Jan-2003
The appellant suffered cerebral palsy. Following a review, he was awarded mobility allowance, and then later the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance for life. He applied for the care element also. The respondent refused the care . .
CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85561

Partridge v Adjudication Officer Case: ECJ 2 Jul 1998

Attendance allowance payable in England was properly withdrawn after claimant left England to live in France permanently. Attendance allowance is in special category under the regulations.

Citations:

Times 02-Jul-1998, C-297/96, [1998] EUECJ C-297/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991, EC Treaty Art 177

Benefits, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84599

O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 23 May 1996

A condition on the making of a funeral grant that the deceased be buried in that country was unlawful. Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community precludes a rule of a Member State which makes grant of a payment to cover funeral expenses incurred by a migrant worker subject to the condition that burial or cremation take place within the territory of that Member State. Unless objectively justified and proportionate to the aim pursued, a provision of national law, even if applicable irrespective of nationality, must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory, and hence not complying with the equality of treatment prescribed by Article 7(2), if it is simply intrinsically liable to affect migrant workers more than national workers and if there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage. Firstly, as regards funeral expenses, although the costs he incurs will be of the same type as and of comparable amount to those incurred by a national worker, it is above all the migrant worker who may, on the death of a member of the family, arrange for burial in another Member State, in view of the links which the members of such a family generally maintain with their State of origin. Secondly, the refusal to grant the payment if the funeral takes place in another Member State cannot be justified by considerations of public health, or by considerations relating to the cost of funerals, since the cost of transporting the coffin to a place distant from the deceased’ s home is not covered in any event, or by the difficulty of checking the expenses incurred.

Citations:

Times 07-Jun-1996, C-237/94, [1996] All ER (EC) 541, [1996] ECR I-2617, [1996] EUECJ C-237/94

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

AppliedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carlos Bobezes CA 16-Feb-2005
The Regulations provided that income support was not payable for a dependent child for any period of four weeks or more where the child was outside Great Britain. The claimant, a Portuguese national had come to Great Britain but had been incapable . .
CitedCollins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 4-Apr-2006
The claimant had dual Irish and US nationality. He therefore also was a citizen of the EU. He complained that the British rules against payment of job seekers’ allowance were discriminatory. The matter had already been to the ECJ.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84430

Mulvey v Secretary of State for Social Security: HL 20 Mar 1997

The appellant had had repayable awards from the social fund and also income support benefit. Deductions were made from the benefit to repay the awards. Her estate was sequestrated. She argued that the awards should no longer be deducted.
Held: Deductions by way of recoupment for overpayments of benefit were correctly continued after bankruptcy.
Lord Jauncey said: ‘By no stretch of the imagination could the respondent’s exercise of his statutory right be described as diligence for the purpose of the law of Scotland’.
The rule at common law rule was also disapplied: ‘The deductions made by the respondent were not, as in the normal case of compensation in bankruptcy, a result of the bankruptcy, but were made in pursuance of a statutory scheme which was already in operation at the time of sequestration and with which the permanent trustee can have no concern. Prior to sequestration, the appellant had no right to receive by way of income support benefit more than her gross entitlement under deduction of such sum as had been notified to her by the respondent prior to payment of the award by the respondent. This was the result of the statutory scheme and she could not have demanded more.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Citations:

[1997] UKHL 10, 1997 SC (HL) 105

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 167(3), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 138(1)

Citing:

CitedFraser v Robertson 1881
A creditor in an obligation undertaken by a debtor prior to sequestration must, after sequestration, enforce that obligation against the estate vested in the trustee and can only seek a decree of constitution there anent against the debtor . .
CitedMacdonald’s Trustee v Macdonald 1938
So much income received by a debtor as exceeds his needs, as determined by the Sheriff, may require to be paid to the permanent trustee. The 1921 Act did not override . .
CitedBradley-Hole v Cusen CA 1953
The creditor was a tenant of rent-controlled premises who had been charged too much rent by his landlord. The bankrupt landlord’s trustee argued that the claim in respect of overpaid rent had been converted into a right to prove the debt in the . .
Appeal fromMulvey v Secretary of State for Social Security IHCS 24-Nov-1995
The claimant had first been granted a loan from the Social Fund. After her bankruptcy, the benefits loan was recoverable from benefits even after the bankruptcy if the loan was not proved in the bankruptcy. The right to recover by deduction was but . .

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne and Another SC 14-Dec-2011
The appellant sought to recover overpayments of benefits and Social Fund Loans, after the respondent had had a Debt relief order.
Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal failed. The ‘net entitlement principle’ argued for did not exist. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Benefits, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84121

Meyers v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 19 Jul 1995

EC directive on equal rights requires single parents to set off child care costs.
A social security benefit designed to keep low income workers in employment or to encourage them into employment was within the scope of Directive 76/207/EC, not only as being directly related to access to employment, but also on the basis that the claimants’ working conditions were affected. The Court said that: ‘To confine the latter concept solely to those working conditions which are set out in the contract of employment or applied by the employer in respect of a worker’s employment would remove situations directly covered by an employment relationship from the scope of the directive.’
A benefit such as family credit, which may be paid to a person in Great Britain if his income is no higher than a given ceiling, if he, or if he is a member of a couple, he or the other member of the couple, is engaged in remunerative work and he or the other member of the couple is responsible for a child or another member of the same household, and which performs the dual function of keeping poorly paid workers in employment and of meeting family expenses, has by virtue of its first function an objective which brings it within the scope of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
The concept of access to employment referred to in Article 3 of the directive must not be understood as relating solely to the conditions existing before an employment relationship is created. The prospect of receiving family credit if he accepts low-paid work encourages an unemployed worker to accept such work, with the result that the benefit is related to considerations governing access to employment. Furthermore, compliance with the fundamental principle of equal treatment presupposes that a benefit such as family credit, which is necessarily linked to an employment relationship, constitutes a working condition within the meaning of Article 5 of the directive.

Citations:

Times 19-Jul-1995, Ind Summary 11-Sep-1995, C-116/94, [1995] EUECJ C-116/94, [1995] ECR I-2131

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment etc

Cited by:

CitedX v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another SC 12-Dec-2012
The appellant was disabled, had legal qualifications, and worked with the respondent as a volunteer. She had sought assistance under the Disability Discrimination Act, now the 2012 Act, saying that she counted as a worker. The tribunal and CA had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83675

M (a Child by her Father and Litigation Friend B) v Secretary of State for Social Security: HL 5 Jul 2001

The applicant had been entitled to and received Disability Living Allowance for a fixed period. Her entitlement was due for review, but before that, the regulations were altered, and a new condition was imposed. That condition depended upon her unconditional right of residence in the UK, and she did not at first satisfy it. She later satisfied it, but claimed entitlement for the interim period. The issue was whether the transitional provisions of the amending regulations had the effect of continuing her entitlement by leaving in force the original regulations because her entitlement was then established. The court held that the regulations preserved her rights only for as long as the original fixed period applied. Thereafter she was to make a new claim, and that claim would be under the new rules.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Times 06-Jul-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1453, [2001] UKHL 35, [2001] 4 All ER 41, (2001) 61 BMLR 1

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996 No 30 12(3)

Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83251

Elsen v Bundes-Versicherungsanstalt Fur Angestellte: ECJ 14 Feb 2001

When calculating an old age pension, a member state was wrong to exclude a period in which the applicant had cared for her child in another member state. She was a frontier worker, and the child had been born in the home country. To allow periods in which she had cared for the child in a neighbouring state to be excluded when calculating her pension entitlement would discourage freedom of movement of workers, and was not to be permitted

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2001, C-135/99

Benefits, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80303

Chief Adjudication Officer v Stafford and Banks: HL 29 Jun 2001

The appellant first applied for income support and then for job seeker’s allowance in respect of periods between terms. He was employed as a classroom assistant in a school, and was not paid outside term. He sought but could not obtain work. He was denied benefits. He claimed that when averaged over the year including holidays.
Held: With some reluctance, since the school year imposed a recognisable cycle, the rules which required holiday periods to be disallowed when calculating the average must be applied, which defeated his claim for benefits.

Citations:

Times 29-Jun-2001, Gazette 09-Aug-2001, [2001] UKHL 33, [2001] 1 WLR 1411

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967) 5(3B), Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (1996 No 207) 51(2)(c)

Citing:

Appeal fromChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford; Same v Banks CA 27-Oct-1999
The provisions for requiring the averaging of pay over entire cycles of work were applied to ensure that workers who worked part time for educational establishments and who were not paid when the schools were closed, were not able to receive . .

Cited by:

Appealed toChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford; Same v Banks CA 27-Oct-1999
The provisions for requiring the averaging of pay over entire cycles of work were applied to ensure that workers who worked part time for educational establishments and who were not paid when the schools were closed, were not able to receive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79047

Chief Adjudication Officer and Another v Foster: HL 7 Apr 1993

The Social Security Commissioners have the jurisdiction and power to decide if a Regulation is ultra vires the powers under which it purports to have been made.
Lord Bridge said of the Social Security Commissioners: ‘My conclusion is that the commissioners have undoubted jurisdiction to determine any challenge to the vires of a provision in regulations made by the Secretary of State as being beyond the scope of the enabling power whenever it is necessary to do so in determining whether a decision under appeal was erroneous in point of law. I am pleased to reach that conclusion for two reasons First, it avoids a cumbrous duplicity of proceedings which could only add to the already overburdened list of applications for judicial review awaiting determination by the Divisional Court. Second, it is, in my view, highly desirable that when the Court of Appeal, or indeed your Lordships House, are called upon to determine an issue of the kind in question they should have the benefit of the views upon it of one or more of the commissioners who have great expertise in this somewhat esoteric area of the law’.

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

Gazette 07-Apr-1993, [1993] AC 754, [1993] 2 WLR 292, [1993] 1 All ER 705

Statutes:

Social Security Act 1975 22(4)

Cited by:

CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Administrative

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79024

Chief Adjudication Officer v Wolke; Remelien v Secretary of State for Social Security: HL 13 Nov 1997

The claimant was an EC national who had become resident here but was not seeking work, since she cared for her children. The Secretary of State said that since she was not seeking work, she was not entitled to remain and should make arrangements to leave the UK.
Held: The letter asking a claimant to make arrangements to return to his or her own European state was not sufficient of itself to remove his right to claim benefits.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1997, Times 01-Dec-1997, [1997] UKHL 50, [1998] 1 All ER 129, [1997] 1 WLR 1640, [1998] 1 FLR 444, [1998] 1 FCR 119, [1998] Fam Law 193

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 21(3)(b), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 175, Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994

Citing:

CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen ECJ 26-Feb-1991
ECJ The free movement of workers enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty entails the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the . .
CitedRegina v Stanislaus Pieck ECJ 3-Jul-1980
Any formality for the purpose of granting leave, coupled with a passport or an identity card check at the frontier, was contrary to article 3(2) of Directive 68/360 E.E.C. which prohibited Member States from demanding an entry visa or equivalent . .
CitedCentre Public D’Aide Sociale De Courcelles v Lebon ECJ 18-Jun-1987
A right to equal treatment with regard to social and tax advantages accorded by article 7(2) of Regulation No. 1612/68 E.E.C. applied only to workers and not to nationals of Member States who move in search of employment. The latter were entitled . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Vitale; Regina v Same Ex Parte Do Amaral QBD 18-Apr-1995
A European Union citizen’s right to stay in UK is not unqualified, he must expect to have to seek or find work. The decision of the Home Secretary could be judicially reviewed and ‘in the course of his appeal before the Social Security Appeal . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Barnet v Ismail and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
The court considered the entitlement to housing support of nationals of other EEA states receiving Income Support here despite their being still subject to immigration control.
Held: Such EEA nationals were eligible for housing benefit. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Immigration, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79052

Chief Adjudication Officer and Another v Quinn (For Jane Harris) and Another: HL 9 Oct 1996

LT Applicable amount – local authority accommodation leased to voluntary organisations – whether claimants are ‘persons in residential accommodation’ or are living in ‘residential care homes’

Judges:

Lord Keith, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Gazette 09-Oct-1996, Times 08-Aug-1996, [1996] UKSSCSC CIS – 298 – 1992, [1996] 1 WLR 1184, CIS/641/1992, CIS/298/1992

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 26

Cited by:

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

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79032

Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer: HL 17 May 1996

Severe disability premium not available to adult claimant residing with parents.

Citations:

Gazette 17-May-1996, Times 17-May-1996

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1867) Sch2 13(2)(a

Citing:

Appeal fromBate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another CA 2-Dec-1994
A disabled adult living with her parents was still entitled to receive the severe disability premium. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toBate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another CA 2-Dec-1994
A disabled adult living with her parents was still entitled to receive the severe disability premium. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78281

Regina (on the application of Waite) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: CA 2002

As to the distribution of benefits, ‘ . . the distribution of State benefit lies peculiarly within the constitutional responsibility of elected Government’.

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 482

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Isle of Anglesey County Council v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 30-Oct-2003
The claimant council sought re-imbursement from the Secretary of the excess housing benefit payments it had made to claimants. The system expected the Council to have made referrals of high rents to rent officers. The respondent had decided that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187290

The Queen v The Inhabitants of Whissendine: 1842

Pauper; being settled by apprenticeship in M., gained a subsequent settlement in W. by residing on an estate there, but, becoming lunatic while he continued to reside on the same estate, he was, after the passing of stat. 4 and 6 W. 4, c. 76, removed by his relations to the county lunatic asylum, more than ten miles from W., and was for several years maintained in that asylum, partly by his relatives, partly by the rents of his said estate, until, those resources proving inadequate, he was taken from the asylum and brought to W. for one night, and was then removed as a pauper lunatic to the same asylum, by warrant under stat. 9 G. 4, c. 40, s. 38. Held, that, an order of justices on the overseers of W., under the last-mentioned clause, for the payment of a weekly sum for his maintenance in the asylum, was wrong, the pauper having, under stat. 4 and 5 W, 4, c. 76, s. 68, lost his settlement in W. by ceasing to inhabit.

Citations:

[1842] EngR 86, (1842) 2 QB 450, (1842) 114 ER 178

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.307041

The Queen v The Inhabitants Of Wellington: 19 Nov 1845

Where the parish applying to remove a pauper proves before the justices a former removal, acquiesced in, to the parish now about to be charged, and produces the order of removal, such order, or a copy, must be sent to the latter parish, under stat. 4: and 5 W. 4, c. 76, s 79.
On appeal against an order of justices, removing James Hindley and his wife and two children from the parish of Wellington in Shropshire, to the parish, in the borough of Wslsall, Staffordshire, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a special case.

Citations:

[1845] EngR 1275, (1845) 11 QB 65, (1845) 116 ER 400

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.304417

Cis/1672/96: SSC 17 Jun 1998

Where claimant has no address, he may be entitled to basic job-seekers personal allowance but not to the premiums which accompany accommodation. Claimant living in car not adapted for sleeping or cooking.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jun-1998

Benefits

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79138

Shackell v United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Apr 2000

The court held inadmissible a claim by an unmarried woman to widow’s benefit. The parties having chosen not to marry, they could not complain of not having the legal benefits of a marriage. The promotion of marriage by way of limited benefits for surviving spouses could not be said to exceed the margin of appreciation afforded to the Government: ‘The court accepts that there may well not be an increased social acceptance of stable personal relationships outside the traditional notion of marriage. However, marriage remains an institution which is widely accepted as conferring a particular status on those who enter it.’

Citations:

45851/99

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
CitedRodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Family, Benefits

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244727

Regina v Housing Benefit Review Board of Swale Borough Council ex parte Simon Stuart Marchant: CA 17 Nov 1999

A party in a separated couple where primary residence was with the other party, had staying contact, but the child benefit remained unapportioned. That party was not able to claim housing benefit which would reflect his need for larger accommodation to facilitate that staying contact. The decision was an administrative exercise as to whether the child was ‘normally living’ with him.

Citations:

Times 17-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 137

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Housing Benefit Review Board of Swale Borough Council ex parte Simon Stuart Marchant Admn 17-Dec-1998
Where children of a broken marriage split their time equally between both parents, but only one parent received all the Child Benefit, the local authority was entitled to set allowance for size of house supported by housing benefit on the same . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina v Housing Benefit Review Board of Swale Borough Council ex parte Simon Stuart Marchant Admn 17-Dec-1998
Where children of a broken marriage split their time equally between both parents, but only one parent received all the Child Benefit, the local authority was entitled to set allowance for size of house supported by housing benefit on the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Child Support

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85578

Megarry v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 12 Nov 1999

The claimant having a high IQ along with autism did not prevent a claim that he suffered a ‘severe impairment of intelligence’ and so disentitle him to the higher rate of mobility under the Disability Living Allowance regulations. Autism could constitute an arrest of development, and also severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1999, Times 12-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 73(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83604

Jones v Waveney District Council: CA 17 Dec 1999

Where a local authority, having paid housing benefit in excess to a landlord, sought to recover that excess from him, it could not do so otherwise than in accordance with the regulations which provided for this. It was not open to the authority to deduct any overpayment from later payments, and if it did so, the landlord had the standing to reclaim the deducted amounts as a debt. Such a claim was not subject only to judicial review of the authority’s actions as part of public law.

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1971)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Benefits, Landlord and Tenant, Local Government

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82620

Chief Adjudication Officer v Stafford; Same v Banks: CA 27 Oct 1999

The provisions for requiring the averaging of pay over entire cycles of work were applied to ensure that workers who worked part time for educational establishments and who were not paid when the schools were closed, were not able to receive benefits for the weeks when they were not paid because of the overall average level of earnings.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 09-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967) 5(3B), Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (1996 No 207) 51(2)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford and Banks HL 29-Jun-2001
The appellant first applied for income support and then for job seeker’s allowance in respect of periods between terms. He was employed as a classroom assistant in a school, and was not paid outside term. He sought but could not obtain work. He was . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromChief Adjudication Officer v Stafford and Banks HL 29-Jun-2001
The appellant first applied for income support and then for job seeker’s allowance in respect of periods between terms. He was employed as a classroom assistant in a school, and was not paid outside term. He sought but could not obtain work. He was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79048

Ashraf v Secretary of State for Social Security: CA 17 Dec 1999

Where an applicant had been granted a lifetime disabled living allowance, but appealed on an issue related to the mobility component of that award which had been for a term also, the tribunal was not to consider the validity of the disabled living allowance as a whole. The tribunal must identify the individual grounds for review which existed under the Act, but not otherwise consider the issue.

Citations:

Times 11-Jan-2000, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 33(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77899

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carmichael and Sefton BC (HB): UTAA 27 Apr 2017

Housing and Council Tax Benefits – Rent Restrictions – Regulation B13 (‘bedroom tax’ or ‘spare room subsidy’) – claimant and disabled wife unable to share same bedroom owing to wife’s disability needs; FTT should have directed local authority to calculate the claimant’s housing benefit entitlement without making a deduction of 14% for under occupancy (to avoid an unlawful breach of Mr and Mrs Carmichael’s ECHR art 14 rights (following R (Carmichael and Rourke) (formerly MA and others) v SSWP [2016] UKSC 58.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 174 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.584193

MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 9 Nov 2016

The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived with dependent family with disabilities, or live in what are known as ‘sanctuary scheme’ homes (accommodation specially adapted to provide protection for women at severe risk of domestic violence). They were all tenants of registered social landlords and they all receive or received HB.
Held: The appeal of Carmichael the appeal succeeded, but the other benefits claimants failed. The standard test in cases involving questions of economic and social policy was whether the discrimination was ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’. How to deal with the impact of Reg B13 on individuals with disabilities was just such a question of economic and social policy; the housing benefit cap scheme was integral to the structure of the welfare benefit scheme. The Court of Appeal was therefore correct to apply this test
Otherwise: Daly and Others, Regina (on the application of) (formerly known as MA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pension
Regina (Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 58, [2016] WLR(D) 582, UKSC 2014/0129, [2016] PTSR 1422, (2017) 20 CCL Rep 103, [2016] 1 WLR 4550, [2017] 1 All ER 869, [2016] HRLR 24
Summary

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summ Video, SC290216 am, SC290216 pm, SC010316 am, SC010316 pm, SC020316 am, SC020316 pm

Statutes:

Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14, Equality Act 2010 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRutherford and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 27-Jan-2016
Challenge to lawfulness of regulations applying a discount to payments of housing benefits when there was deemed to be a spare bedroom.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. . .
At first instanceMA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 30-Jul-2013
Ten disabled claimants challenged the changes to the 2006 Regulations introduced by the 2012 Regulations. The changes restricted the ability to claim Housing Benefit for bedrooms deemed extra. The claimants said that in their different ways each had . .
Appeal fromMA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-Feb-2014
The claimants were in recipet of housing benefit. They claimed that the new benefits cap (‘bedroom tax’) discriminated against them when additional space was need for the care of family members with disabilities . .
CitedBurnip v Birmingham City Council and Another CA 15-May-2012
The court considered an allegation of discrimination in the application of housing benefit for a disabled person.
Held: The claimants had established a prima facie case of discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR, and that the Secretary of . .
CitedBracking and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 6-Nov-2013
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decision by the respondent to close the Independent Living Fund.
Held: McCombe LJ summarised the application of section 149 of the 2010 Act: ‘1 . . . .
CitedJS and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 5-Nov-2013
The claimants challenged the benefits cap introduced under the 2012 Act, saying that it was discriminatory, affecting more women than men. Mr Eadie QC submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State that, as ‘an international instrument with no . .

Cited by:

CitedMcLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.570982

Rutherford and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 27 Jan 2016

Challenge to lawfulness of regulations applying a discount to payments of housing benefits when there was deemed to be a spare bedroom.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part.

Judges:

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ, Tomlinson LJ, Vos LJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 29, [2016] WLR(D) 36

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Housing Benefit Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .
CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.559354

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carmichael and Another: CA 20 Mar 2018

The court considered the aproach after the rule under which Housing Benefits had been decided had been declared unlawful.

Judges:

The President of the Queens Bench Division
(Sir Brian Leveson)
Lord Justice Flaux
And
Lord Justice Leggatt

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 548, [2018] WLR(D) 176, [2018] 1 WLR 3429

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Administrative

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.606478

Francis v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 10 Nov 2005

The applicant had sought payment of a ‘Sure Start’ maternity grant. She had obtained a residence order in respect of her sister’s baby daughter who had been taken into care. She said that a payment would have been made to the partner of a mother or an adopter, and that she should be similarly entitled.
Held: The regulations were discriminatory, and a declaration was granted. ‘we are bound to apply the test suggested by the House of Lords and to examine whether the ground for different treatment in this case amounts to a status in the sense of a personal characteristic. ‘ and ‘administrative convenience cannot in itself be a sufficient justification for discrimination without some other justification as to why those in an analogous or relevantly similar situation are being excluded.’ Where the Secretary of State relies on administrative convenience and ‘bright line’ rules he must still show some ‘serious adverse consequences’ to justify the discrimination.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1303, Times 17-Nov-2005, [2006] 1 WLR 3202

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14, Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCarson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
CitedKjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools.
Held: The parents’ philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their . .
CitedThe National and Provincial Building Society, The Leeds Permanent Building Society And The Yorkshire Building Society v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Oct-1997
There was no breach of human rights by the retrospective removal of a right to reclaim overpaid tax. Such a decision was within the general power of a government to impose and collect tax. Not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation . .
CitedPetrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedEngel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
CitedRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .

Cited by:

CitedStewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Jul-2011
The court considered the arrangements for providing public support for the costs of funerals. The claimant’s son had died whilst she was in prison. Assistance had been refused because, as a prisoner, she was not receiving benefits. She complained . .
CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.234694

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.

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

[1982] 1 All ER 498

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Benefits

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.181197

JW and EW v United Kingdom: ECHR 1982

The Commission considered a complaint that the UK government’s failure to pay an uprated pension infringed the pensioner’s Convention rights. The applicants were emigrating to Australia. The Commission rejected the complaint as inadmissible, saying ‘The Commission has considered the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of the Protocol. It first recalls that it has previously held that although this provision does not as such guarantee a right to a pension, the right to benefit from a social security system to which a person has contributed may in some circumstances be a property right protected by it. However the Commission also held that Article 1 does not guarantee a right to a pension of any particular amount, but that the right safeguarded by Article 1 consists, at most, ‘in being entitled as a beneficiary of the social insurance scheme to any payments made by the fund’ (App. No. 5849/72, Muller v. Austria, D.R 3, p.25 at p. 31). It has further held that before the right to benefit protected by Article 1 can be established, it is necessary that the interested party should have satisfied domestic legal requirements governing the right (App. No. 7459/76, X. v. Italy, D.R. 11, p. 114). In the present case when the applicants emigrate to Australia their entitlement to benefit from the United Kingdom pension scheme will come to be regulated by different rules of domestic law, under which they will cease to qualify for payment of future pension increases contemplated by the relevant legislation. To that extent they will not satisfy domestic legal requirements to benefit from the United Kingdom pension scheme. Even if the right to benefit from a scheme will normally also apply to the regular increases this is not necessarily the case where a person leaves the country where the specific scheme operates. The Commission notes that in many countries specific restrictions as to the payment of social security benefits to foreign countries exist or have existed . . In the Commission’s view such operation of domestic law does not amount to a deprivation of possessions infringing Article 1 of the Protocol and there is thus no appearance of any breach of this provision.’

Citations:

9776/82

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Annette Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 22-May-2002
The claimant received a UK state pension. She lived in South Africa, and challenged the exclusion of foreign resident pensioners from the annual uprating of pension benefits. She asserted that the state pension, or its uprating, were pecuniary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.180999

CIS 5848/99: SSAT 1999

Because it was the practice of the child benefit officer to notify the relevant Social Security Office of child benefit awards, the latter office must be taken to have known of an award which was not disclosed to them by the claimant and that the non-disclosure was therefore not the cause of an overpayment. (Obiter) in modern conditions, with the availability of computer systems, claimants might be entitled to assume that information had been communicated between officials of the department and that disclosure was therefore unnecessary.

Judges:

Commissioner Howell QC

Citations:

CIS 5848/99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHinchy 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.

Benefits

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223215

Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte M: 1997

Citations:

(1997) 1 CCLR 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Mani) v London Borough of Lambeth CA 9-Jul-2003
Where a destitute and disabled asylum seeker had a clear need for care and attention, the local authority had a duty to provide it. The claimant was an asylum seeker, with impaired mobility and a history of mental halth difficulties. At first he was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Immigration

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185835

Jansen v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz: ECJ 5 May 1977

ECJ Article 2 of regulation no 3 and article 4 of regulation no 1408/71, which lay down the matters covered by those regulations, deal with the various national social security schemes in their entirety. The reimbursement of social security contributions therefore forms part of the matters covered by those regulations. Since regulation no 3 does not contain any specific provision relating to the reimbursement of contributions the general rules affirmed by that regulation and by the provisions of the treaty to which it gives effect, such as the rule on equality of treatment and that on the waiving of residence clauses, are applicable. Article 10 (2) of regulation no 1408/71, which constitutes a specific provision and introduces a new rule in respect of the reimbursement of contributions, cannot, however, be extended to facts which occurred outside the period covered by that regulation. Although the provisions of article 51 of the eec treaty and of the regulations adopted to give it effect ensure that, for the purpose of acquiring and retaining the right to benefit, migrant workers enjoy aggregation of all periods taken into account under the laws of the several countries, they cannot however be interpreted, in the absence of express provisions, as preventing persons so favoured from exercising the legal options open to them under the legislation of one or other of the member states, such as the right of applying in certain circumstances for the reimbursement of social security contributions. Therefore, community law, as it stood at the time of the adoption of regulation no 3, cannot be interpreted as excluding an option available under a national legislation with regard to the reimbursement of social security contributions.

Citations:

C-104/76

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.132502

Buxton, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 17 Aug 2018

Challenge to cap placed on the amount of certain payments made under a discretionary assistance scheme established under statutory powers to help people with disabilities to work.

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2196 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621156

H v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Aug 2018

The court was asked whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) breached his legal duties to provide support and assistance for the Claimant who had been trafficked as a youngster into the UK. The Claimant also alleges that the treatment he received is illustrative of systemic failings in the treatment of victims of trafficking such that the Court should grant declaratory relief.
Held: There had been failings an errors, but these had now been acknowledged and decision

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2191 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621158

Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern: ECJ 28 Sep 2006

Opinion – Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community – Concept of worker – German official having transferred his permanent residence to Austria while continuing to work in Germany – Refusal to grant child-raising allowance (Erziehungsgeld) to his spouse of Austrian nationality resident in Austria and not working in Germany – Social advantage

Judges:

Geelhoed AG

Citations:

C-212/05, [2006] EUECJ C-212/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionHartmann v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 18-Jul-2007
Europa (Grand Chamber) (Free Movement Of Persons) Frontier worker Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Transfer of residence to another Member State Non-working spouse Child-raising allowance Not granted to spouse Social . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618936

TP and AR, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 14 Jun 2018

Two claims challenging aspects of the regulations creating and implementing the system of universal credit, which is intended to replace the existing system of welfare benefits. The claimants are both individuals who, under the previous system governing welfare benefits, had been in receipt of an income related employment and support allowance. In addition, as they met certain additional criteria, they had been in receipt of certain additional premiums (known as Severely Disability Premium and Enhanced Disability Premium.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1474 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618126

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MMcK: SCS 24 Aug 2017

(Extra Division, Inner House) Appeal by the Secretary of State against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) raising the question of what is meant by ‘social support’ as that expression is used in Activity 9 descriptor c in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.
Held: the Secretary of State’s approach failed to recognise the potential for overlap between the ‘prompting’ and the ‘social support’ categories. They are not mutually exclusive categories. The critical distinction between descriptor 9b prompting and descriptor 9c support lay not in a difference in the nature of the help provided but in the fact that, with social support, there is a necessity for the help to come from a person trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations. Having given the example of psychological support given by someone trained in psychology, which would clearly count as ‘social support’, it went on to say: ‘But there may be cases where the support is in the nature of encouragement or explanation but, because of the claimant’s mental state, will only be effective if delivered by someone who is trained or experienced in delivering that type of support to that individual. In such a case there will not be a qualitative difference in the help given, but the help can be regarded as ‘support’ because of the necessity for it to be provided by someone trained or experienced in delivering it.’

Judges:

Lord Brodie, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2017] ScotCS CSIH – 57, 2018 SC 1, 2017 SLT 1045, 2017 GWD 29-468, [2019] WLR(D) 460

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal fromSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM SC 18-Jul-2019
This appeal relates to personal independence payment, which is a non-means tested allowance paid to certain people with long term health problems or disability. The appeal’s focus is upon one of the markers used to determine whether a claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.593570

Hickey v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 20 Apr 2018

Appeal from refusal of Personal Independence Payment
Held: Factors set out in relation to ‘engaging socially’ are nevertheless relevant to the consideration of a person’s ability to engage with other people face to face.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 851, [2018] WLR(D) 236

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM SC 18-Jul-2019
This appeal relates to personal independence payment, which is a non-means tested allowance paid to certain people with long term health problems or disability. The appeal’s focus is upon one of the markers used to determine whether a claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.614900

EG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pip) (Personal Independence Payment – Daily Living Activities – Activity 7: Communicating Verbally): UTAA 6 Mar 2017

Activity 7 is limited to assessing speech and hearing; it does not include the ability to communicate by means such as text. It must be considered in the light of the activities that a claimant might undertake, but not as they may be limited due to choices made because of a disability (here, potentially choosing unnaturally quiet environments in light of a hearing impairment). Under Activity 9 social support means conduct which is more than prompting, and requires the presence of the person providing that support.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 101 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM SC 18-Jul-2019
This appeal relates to personal independence payment, which is a non-means tested allowance paid to certain people with long term health problems or disability. The appeal’s focus is upon one of the markers used to determine whether a claimant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.584167

Hampshire v Board of The Pension Protection Fund: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

Social Policy – Insolvency of Their Employer – Entitlement of Employees To Old-Age Benefits – Opinion – Request for a preliminary ruling – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC – Protection of the immediate and prospective entitlement of employees to old-age benefits – Supplementary occupational pension scheme – Minimum guarantee – Direct applicability

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:287, [2018] EUECJ C-17/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits, Employment

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609311

Szrabjer and Clarke v United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Jun 1998

The applicants were denied the earnings-related element of their pensions while they were in prison, pursuant to s.113(1)(d) of the 1992 Act which I have set out. They claimed violations both of Article 1P, and of Article 14 read with Article 1P. The Commission declared the complaints inadmissible. It held (referring to Gaygusuz) that the earnings-related pension amounted to a pecuniary right for the purposes of Article 1P; however its being withheld from the applicants while they were in prison could be considered (as the government contended) as being in the public interest. Accordingly the complaint of a violation of Article 1P simpliciter was manifestly ill-founded.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jun-1998, 27004/95, 27011/95

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 1 Article 1

Cited by:

CitedCarson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89670

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte Nessa: QBD 15 Nov 1994

Regulations under which payments were made for funeral benefits were not susceptible to a challenge under the Race Relations Act, since they were an act of the Crown.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Feb-1995, Times 15-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 20

Cited by:

Appeal fromNessa v Chief Adjudication Officer CA 5-Feb-1998
The requirement that an applicant for income support must show ‘Habitual residence’ required a demonstration that in the applicant was in the UK voluntarily for settled purposes and an appreciable time should pass before income a support claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88613

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jammeh; Regina v Same Ex Parte Bajraktari; Similar: QBD 11 Sep 1997

The policy of not allowing asylum seekers to have work permits could not continue alongside the withdrawal of benefits and is ultra vires the powers of the Secretary of State.

Citations:

Times 11-Sep-1997

Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88637