(Un-named) (State Pension): SSCS 24 Feb 2003

The tribunal considered entitlement of the claimant to a guaranteed minimum pension in respect of his occupational pension, and an appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State about the amount of state retirement pension to which the claimant was entitled.

Citations:

[2003] UKSSCSC CP – 4479 – 2000(2)

Links:

Bailii

Benefits

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197224

Campbell and others v South Northamptonshire District Council, Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions: CA 7 Apr 2004

The claimants were members of the Jesus Fellowship church, living communally. Their claim for housing benefit was rejected on the basis that the payment made was not by way of a commercial rental.
Held: The court could take into account the background of the payments in deciding whether the tenancy agreements were on a commercial basis. To take that into account was not discrimination infringing their freedom of religion. The question posed was one of fact, and the Convention did not operate to make evidence inadmissible on such an issue.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 409, Times 23-Apr-2004, [2004] 3 All ER 387

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Housing, Human Rights

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195490

Secretary of State for Defence v President of the Pension Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales): QBD 4 Feb 2004

The secretary appealed a decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal to set aside a decision of the Pensions Tribunal. The applicant had been awarded a service pension.
Held: The PAT had no general power to set aside a decision of the tribunal for an irregularity. The rules provided for a right of appeal to the High Court, and therefore no great hardship resulted. The PAT should have remitted the case for directions.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Newman

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 141 (Admin), Times 27-Feb-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Armed Forces, Benefits

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192631

Wright-Turner v Department for Social Development: CANI 11 Jan 2002

Appeal from rejection of claim for invalid care allowance

Citations:

[2002] NICA 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Deane CA 23-Jun-2010
Care Allowance withheld for full time student
The claimant cared for her daughter but then commenced a university degree course. Being in full time education, her entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance was withheld. The Secretary of State appealed against a re-instatement of the benefit.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189652

Regina 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 had been a failure to make such referrals had led to the overpayments, and that the Council had received benefit. The Council replied that it had received nothing which it had not paid on, and that a failure to make repayment, even of a part of the overpayment, would cause it hardship.
Held: The decision taken by the Secretary of State was lawful, and nor was there any other adequate reason to quash the decision to recover the sum demanded.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lindsay

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2518 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Contributions & Benefits Act 1992 123(1)(d) 123(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Hook CA 1976
The applicant applied to have quashed the decision of the local council to exclude him from trading in the market and to revoke his right to have a stall.
Held: He succeeded on the grounds that the decision had been taken in breach of the . .
CitedRegina v Brent London Boriugh Council, ex parte Assegai 1987
A committee of the Borough resolved to ban Mr Assegai, who had been involved in a fracas and had made offensive remarks to two Councillors, from visiting any of the Borough’s properties. The resolution also purported to remove him from his . .
CitedRegina (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’. . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
CitedRegina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte National Farmers’ Union and others ECJ 5-May-1998
Land from which nitrates were leeching off into rivers causing pollution, had to be designated as environmentally vulnerable land, if agricultural activities were a substantial even if only partially cause of the pollution. ‘As regards . . . the . .
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Lambeth, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 20-Apr-2005
The authority had received too much by way of housing benefit subsidy in 1991 and 1992, having failed to refer rents to rent officers. It now challenged the decision of the respondent to recover the overpayment by deductions from future payments. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187276

Gjini, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Apr 2003

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:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina 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

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.

Judges:

Lord Jusice Aldous Lord Justice Carnwath Sir Denis Henry

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 71

Jurisdiction:

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.

Benefits

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179578

Oliveira v Commission: ECFI 19 Mar 1997

Social policy – European Social Fund – Assistance in the financing of vocational training measures – New decision following a judgment of the Court of Justice – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Prohibition of reformatio in pejus – Reasonable time.

Citations:

T-73/95, [1997] EUECJ T-73/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173008

Josu Miguel Dyaz Garcya v European Parliament: ECFI 18 Dec 1992

ECJ 1. Under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the treatment, as a dependent child, of a person whom an official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure constitutes an exceptional step. The condition that the official must have a legal responsibility to maintain a person other than a dependent child must for that reason be interpreted strictly. The concept of ‘a legal responsibility to maintain’ used in the Staff Regulations is derived from the legal systems of the Member States, which, under their laws, impose a mutual responsibility to provide maintenance on relatives by blood and/or marriage of a greater or lesser degree of proximity. That concept must therefore be understood as referring exclusively to an obligation maintenance imposed on an official by a source of law independent of the will of the parties and as excluding maintenance obligations of a contractual, moral or compensatory nature. Since neither Community law nor the Staff Regulations provide the Community court with any guide as to how it should define, by way of independent interpretation, the meaning and scope of a legal responsibility to maintain, entitling an official to receive a dependent child allowance under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is necessary to determine whether the national legal system to which the official in question is subject imposes such a legal responsibility on the official. 2. The terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation, which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant regulations. In the absence of an express reference to the laws of the Member States, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate a reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation. 3. An official has no legitimate interest in the annulment of a decision for breach of procedural requirements where the administration has no scope for the exercise of discretion but is bound to act as it has done. In such a case, the annulment of the contested decision could lead only to the adoption of another decision identical in substance to the decision annulled.

Citations:

T-43/90, [1992] EUECJ T-43/90

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Children, Benefits

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172447

Charles Fairbank v Lambeth Magistrates’ Court: Admn 25 Apr 2002

The appellant applied for housing benefit. He completed a form which asked if he owned other properties. He had been prosecuted for failing to disclose ownership of a property. He requested the court to consider whether he had a duty to disclose property which he held as bare trustee.
Held: The regulations defined as the owner a person who ‘is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple, whether or not with the consent of other joint owners’. A conviction required the prosecution to demonstrate that he did not know of the need to declare the ownership. In this case the ownership did require declaration. Whether he knew it to be false was a question of fact and the first instance court having heard the evidence, its judgement should not be interfered with. The court was not concerned with the proceeds of sale, only with current entitlement to sell.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy & Mr Justice Leveson

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 785 (Admin), [2002] EWHC 772 (QB)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Act 1992 112, Housing Benefits (General) Regulations 1987 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Sedgemoor District Council Housing Benefit Review Board ex parte Weaden 1986
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172204

Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten: ECJ 18 Apr 2002

Europa Social security for migrant workers – Article 48 and Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 and Article 42 EC) – Article 9a and 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Accident at work occurring in another Member State before the entry into force of the regulation in the worker’s home State – Incapacity for work

Judges:

P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: R. Grass

Citations:

C-290/00, [2002] EUECJ C-290/00

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Benefits

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170166

Regina v Ssat Chairman Ex Parte O’Hara: QBD 7 Dec 1994

Chairman’s refusal to allow renewal of an appeal out of time for a claimant with Down’s syndrome was not Wednesbury unreasonable. The regulations expressly forbade a renewal of such an application once refused.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88680

Regina v North Yorkshire County Council Ex Parte Hargreaves: QBD 12 Jun 1997

The local authority’s duty to facilitate holidays for the disabled includes the power to fund the basic cost of such holidays.

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-1997

Statutes:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v North Yorkshire County Council Ex Parte Hargreaves QBD 9-Nov-1994
Both the patient and the carer were to be consulted on which place of respite care was to be offered. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88574

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88613

Ruhr v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit: ECJ 25 Oct 2001

ECJ Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Nationals of non-Member countries – Members of a worker’s family – Rights acquired directly and rights derived through others – Unemployment benefit

Citations:

C-189/00, [2001] EUECJ C-189/00, [2001] ECR I-8225, ECLI:EU:C:2001:583

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166768

Khalil, Chabaan, Osseili v Bundesantalt fir Arbeit: ECJ 11 Oct 2001

(Social security for migrant workers) Social security – Article 51 of the EEC Treaty (later Article 51 of the EC Treaty and now, after amendment, Article 42 EC) – Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Stateless persons – Refugees

Citations:

[2001] ECR I-7413, [2001] EUECJ C-95/99, C-95/99, [2001] 3 CMLR 50

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedPatmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 16-Mar-2011
The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166662

Cornwell v United Kingdom; Leary v United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Apr 2000

Mr Cornwell’s wife had died on 24 October 1989, leaving a dependent child. On 7 February 1997 his representative had ‘contacted’ the Benefits Agency to enquire about widow’s benefits. On 14 February 1997 the Agency ‘answered’ to say that legislation provided only for widows and not widowers. On 28 March 1997 the Agency confirmed that if Mrs Cornwell’s record had been that of a man, her survivor would have been entitled to Widow’s Payment and WMA. The position of the Government was set out in the decision as follows: ‘The Government contest the admissibility of the application insofar as it relates to the period 24 October 1989 to 7 February 1996. They point out that the applicant did not attempt to claim widows’ benefits until 7 February 1997 and that it was only from this date onwards that the legislation was applied to him. Had a woman claimed widows’ benefits on 7 February 1997 in respect of the death of her husband in October 1989, she would have been told that she was out of time for claiming a widow’s payment and that she could only claim widowed mothers’ allowance with effect from 8 February 1996. The UK had agreed to pay the benefit equally until the coming into force of legislation which would correct the situation.

Citations:

Times 10-May-2000, 36578/97, (2000) 27 EHRR CD62, [2000] ECHR 167, [2000] ECHR 168

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 18-Jun-2003
The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165864

Jauch v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter: ECJ 8 Mar 2001

ECJ (Judgment) Social security for migrant workers – Austrian scheme of insurance against the risk of reliance on care – Classification of benefits and lawfulness of the residence condition from the point of view of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ C-215/99, [2001] ECR I-1901, ECLI:EU:C:2001:139

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked whether the United Kingdom is precluded, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, . .
AppliedCommission v Parliament and Council (Free Movement of Persons) ECJ 3-May-2007
ECJ Action for annulment – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 4(2a) and 10a – Annex IIa – Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 – Special non-contributory benefits . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162665

Borawitz v Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen: ECJ 21 Sep 2000

(Free movement of persons) (Judgment) Social security for migrant workers – Equal treatment – National legislation fixing, in connection with the transfer abroad of retroactive pension payments, a higher minimum amount than that paid within the country
‘the object of article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 is to ensure, in accordance with [article 39 EC], equal treatment in matters of social security, without distinction based on nationality, for the persons to whom that regulation applies by abolishing all discrimination in that regard deriving from the national legislation of the Member States
It is settled case law that the principle of equal treatment, as laid down in that article, prohibits not only overt discrimination based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social security schemes but also all covert forms of discrimination which, through the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result . .
Accordingly, conditions imposed by national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory where, although applicable irrespective of nationality, they affect essentially migrant workers or where the great majority of those affected are migrant workers, as well as conditions which are applicable without distinction but can more easily be satisfied by national workers than by migrant workers or where there is a risk that they may operate to the particular detriment of migrant workers (Case C-237/94 O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer [1996] ECR I-2617, paragraph 18).
It is otherwise only if those provisions are justified by objective considerations independent of the nationality of the workers concerned, and if they are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the national law . .’

Citations:

C-124/99, [2000] EUECJ C-124/99, [2000] ECR I-7293

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedPatmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 16-Mar-2011
The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162635

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte Taylor: ECJ 16 Dec 1999

The government made additional payments to pensioners in respect of the additional fuel costs incurred in winter. The complainant asserted that as a man aged 62, he would not receive this benefit where a woman of the same age would have done, and that this was discrimination arising from his sex.
Held: The Directive provided for services including those relating to the age of the applicant, this benefit was one such, and the rules were discriminatory and unlawful.
Europa Directive 79/7/EEC – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Grant of a winter fuel payment – Link with pensionable age. Case C-382/98.
1 Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Matters covered by Directive 79/7 – Winter fuel payment payable to those who have reached a minimum age rather than on the basis of a lack of financial means – Included (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 3(1)) 2 Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – Derogation allowed in respect of possible consequences for other benefits of different pensionable ages – Scope -Limited to forms of discrimination necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable ages – Discrimination with regard to grant of a winter fuel payment – Excluded (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 7(2)(a))
Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, which defines the matters covered by the Directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a winter fuel payment, which is part of a statutory scheme, is covered by that directive in so far as payment of the benefit is always subject to the recipients having reached statutory retirement age and it is therefore aimed at protecting them against the risk of old age mentioned in that article. The benefit may be granted to elderly persons, even if they do not have financial difficulties, so that protection against a lack of financial means cannot be considered to be the aim of the benefit. 2 The derogation from the principle of equal treatment for men and women laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security is not applicable to a benefit such as the winter fuel payment, which is subject to the condition that the recipient has reached statutory retirement age, that is to say the age of 60 for women and 65 for men. Such discrimination is not objectively and necessarily linked to the difference in retirement age for men and women. First, from the point of view of the financial equilibrium of the social security system, it is not necessary either for the financial equilibrium of contributory pension schemes, in view of the fact that the benefits are granted under a non-contributory scheme, or for the financial equilibrium of the social security system as a whole. Secondly, from the point of view of consistency between the retirement pension scheme and the other benefit scheme, it is not required, since if the benefit is designed to provide protection against the risk of old age and must, therefore, be paid only to those above a certain age, it does not follow that that age must necessarily coincide with the statutory age of retirement and, as a result, be different for men and women.

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-2000, C-382/98, [1999] EUECJ C-382/98, [1999] ECR I-8955

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Amendment Regulations 1998 No 1910

Citing:

CitedAmministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Spa San Giorgio ECJ 9-Nov-1983
ECJ Questions submitted for a preliminary ruling – reference to the court – right of every national court – stage of the proceedings before the national court – nature of the decision to be given by the national . .

Cited by:

CitedMcdermott and Cotter v Minister For Social Welfare and Attorney-General ECJ 24-Mar-1987
Europa Where council directive 79/7 has not been implemented, article 4(1) of the directive, which prohibits all discrimination on grounds of sex in matters of social security, could be relied on as from 23 . .
CitedWalker-Fox v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Nov-2005
The claimant pensioner had moved to France. He sought to claim a retrospective winter fuel allowance claim. The government had eventually agreed to make payments to UK residents abroad.
Held: The claimant was deemed to have had knowledge of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European, Benefits

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162518

Nijhuis v Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen: ECJ 20 Apr 1999

(Judgment) (Rec 1999,p I-1919) Social security – Incapacity for work – Special scheme for civil servants – Point 4(a) of Section J of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty

Citations:

C-360/97, [1999] EUECJ C-360/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162252

Swaddling v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 25 Feb 1999

A national of a member state having returned home after working abroad, and declaring an intention not to seek work abroad again, and applying for benefits could not be refused on the grounds that he had not been there long enough.
Europa Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1247/92, read together with Article 1(h) thereof, precludes the Member State of origin – in the case of a person who has exercised his right to freedom of movement in order to establish himself in another Member State, in which he has worked and set up his habitual residence, and who has returned to his Member State of origin, where his family lives, in order to seek work – from making entitlement to one of the benefits referred to in Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 conditional upon `habitual residence’ in that State, which presupposes not only an intention to reside there, but also completion of an appreciable period of residence there.

Citations:

Times 04-Mar-1999, C-90/97, [1999] ECRI-1075], [1999] EUECJ C-90/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNessa v Chief Adjudication Officer HL 3-Nov-1999
Mrs. Nessa arrived at Heathrow aged 55 having lived all her life in Bangladesh. Her husband, Mr. Mobarak Ali, had lived in the United Kingdom from 1962 until he died in 1975 and when she arrived here, Mrs. Nessa had a right of abode. She hoped to . .
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: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.162068

Baldone v INAMI: ECJ 25 Sep 1997

(Judgment) Article 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 – Transitional provisions – Recalculation of a benefit on the competent institution’s own initiative – Rights of persons concerned

Citations:

C-307/96, [1997] EUECJ C-307/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161947

Kuusijarvi v Riksforsakringsverket: ECJ 11 Jun 1998

ECJ (Judgment) Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Personal scope – Parental benefit – Maintenance of entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to another Member State

Citations:

[1998] ECR I-3443, [1998] EUECJ C-275/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:279

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked whether the United Kingdom is precluded, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161931

Molenaar v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Wurttemberg: ECJ 5 Mar 1998

ECJ (Judgment) Freedom of movement for workers – Benefits designed to cover the risk of reliance on care

Citations:

[1998] ECR I-843, [1998] EUECJ C-160/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

AppliedCommission v Parliament and Council (Free Movement of Persons) ECJ 3-May-2007
ECJ Action for annulment – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 4(2a) and 10a – Annex IIa – Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 – Special non-contributory benefits . .
CitedSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court was asked whether the United Kingdom is precluded, by Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161862

Bastos Moriana and others v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit: ECJ 27 Feb 1997

(Judgment) Articles 77(2)(b)(i) and 78(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution of a Member State is not bound to grant supplementary family benefits to pensioners or orphans residing in another Member State where the amount of the family benefits paid by the Member State of residence is lower than that of the benefits provided for by the laws of the first Member State if entitlement to the pension, or to the orphan’s pension, has been acquired not solely by virtue of insurance periods completed in that State but by virtue of the application of the aggregation rules provided for by the regulation.
Entitlement to supplementary family benefits over and above the benefits paid by the State of residence presupposes entitlement to a pension, or to an orphan’s pension, acquired solely under the legislation of a Member State other than the State of residence. Where the entitlement of the pensioner or orphan exists only by virtue of the application of the aggregation rules provided for by the regulation, the application of Articles 77 and 78, which provide for benefits to be granted in accordance with the laws of the State of residence, does not deprive the persons concerned of the benefits granted solely under the legislation of another Member State.

Citations:

C-59/95, [1997] EUECJ C-59/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161528

The Queen v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Sutton: ECJ 22 Apr 1997

(Judgment) Directive 79/7/EEC – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Responsibility of a Member State for an infringement of Community law – Right to receive interest on arrears of social security benefits

Citations:

[1997] 2 CMLR 382, [1997] EUECJ C-66/95, [1997] CEC 1110, [1997] All ER (EC) 497, [1997] ICR 961, [1997] IRLR 524, [1997] ECR I-2163

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161532

Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse v Laererstandens Brandforsikring: ECJ 2 Jun 1994

(Judgment) Social security for migrant workers – Benefits payable under the legislation of one Member State for injury sustained in the territory of another Member State – Right of recoupment of the institutions responsible for benefits against the liable third party – Determination according to the national law of the institution responsible – National law not allowing the institution to be subrogated or bring an action for recoupment – Not effective against institutions of the other Member States

Citations:

[1994] ECR I-2259, C-428/92, [1994] EUECJ C-428/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161035

Maitland Toosey v Chief Adjudication Officer: ECJ 27 Jan 1994

ECJ 1. The factor which determines whether Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 applies at all is the residence of the person concerned in a Member State other than that to whose legislation he was subject during his last employment. The first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 for that reason does not apply to a worker who moved with his family to a Member State where he resided and worked and where he suffered incapacity for work followed by invalidity, and who subsequently moved to another Member State without working there, before finally taking up residence in a third Member State, where, owing to his invalidity, he does not work or register for employment.
Such a worker is consequently not covered by Article 39(5) of that regulation and must come within the general rule under Article 39(1), which provides that, with regard to invalidity benefit, the competent Member State is the State whose legislation was applicable at the time when incapacity for work followed by invalidity occurred, in this case the State of last employment.
2. It follows from Article 86 of Regulation No 1408/71 and from Article 35 of Regulation No 574/72 that when a claimant submits a claim for invalidity benefit to the institution of the State of residence, that institution is required to forward it to the institution of the competent Member State, that is to say, the State whose legislation was applicable at the time when incapacity for work followed by invalidity occurred.
On the other hand, and in contrast to the system laid down with respect to other benefits, there is no provision in Regulation No 1408/71 which requires the institutions of the State of residence to pay invalidity benefit to a claimant, even if the competent State is required to make reimbursement, subject to the application of Article 114 of Regulation No 574/72 in the case of a dispute between the relevant institutions. Community law, however, does not in any way prohibit the institution of the State of residence from assisting a claimant in the submission of a claim to the institution of the competent State.

Citations:

C-287/92, [1994] EUECJ C-287/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160953

Staatssecretaris van Financien v Zinnecker: ECJ 13 Oct 1993

ECJ (Judgment) 1. It follows from Annex I.I to Regulation No 1408/71, which provides in relation to the Netherlands that any person pursuing an activity or occupation without a contract of employment is to be considered a self-employed person within the meaning of Article 1(a)(ii) of the regulation, that possession of the status of a self-employed person does not depend upon any residence condition in that Member State.
It follows that a German national who is resident in Germany and pursues an activity as a self-employed person as to approximately one half in that State and one half in the Netherlands must be deemed to be a self-employed person falling within the scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71, notwithstanding the fact that he does not fulfil the residence condition laid down by the Netherlands legislation for affiliation to the Netherlands social security scheme.
2. Article 14a of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the legislation applicable to a German national who is resident in Germany and who pursues an activity as a self-employed person as to one half in that State and one half in the Netherlands is that of Germany.

Citations:

C-121/92, [1993] EUECJ C-121/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160915

Regina 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 of State.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Asylum seekers are not entitled merely because they lack money and accommodation to claim they automatically qualify under section 21(1)(a). They can claim as result of the 1996 Act that as a result of their predicament after they arrive in this country reach a state where they qualify under the subsection because of the effect upon them of the problems under which they are labouring. In addition to the lack of food and accommodation is to be added their inability to speak the language, their ignorance of this country and the fact they have been subject to the stress of coming to this country in circumstances which at least involve their contending to be refugees. Inevitably the combined effect of these factors with the passage of time will produce one or more of the conditions specifically referred to in section 21(1)(a). It is for the authority to decide whether they qualify. In making their decision, they can bear in mind the wide terms of the Direction which gives a useful introduction to the application of the subsection. The authorities can anticipate the deterioration which would otherwise take place in the asylum seekers condition by providing assistance under the section. They do not need to wait until the health of the asylum seeker has been damaged.

Judges:

The Master of The Rolls (Lord Woolf), Lord Justice Waite, Lord Justice Henry

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1032, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 85, (1998) 30 HLR 10, (1997) 9 Admin LR 504, (1997) 1 CCLR 85

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar CA 25-Jun-1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within . .
CitedRands v Oldroyd 1959
The ejusdem generis rule is, at best, a very secondary guide to the meaning of a statute. The all-important matter is to consider the purpose of the statute. A statute preventing a civil servant contracting for his employers with a company in which . .
CitedQuazi v Quazi HL 1979
The husband had pronounced a talaq in Pakistan, in accordance with the 1961 Muslim Family Ordinance. The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction on the wife’s petition to dissolve the marriage and make consequential orders relating . .
Appeal fromRegina 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 . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina 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 . .
CitedWestminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, Benefits

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.141428

Regina v Secretary of State for Health Ex Parte Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Others: QBD 31 Jul 1997

Provision to asylum seekers denied other benefits of board and lodging must be in kind and not in cash

Citations:

Times 31-Jul-1997

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Others CA 9-Sep-1998
The provision by Local Authorities of assistance to destitute asylum seekers had to be by direct help and not by way of cash or cash substitutes (vouchers). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87728

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Services Ex Parte Sarwar and Others: QBD 12 Apr 1995

Regulations introducing a ‘habitual residence’ condition to Income Support were intra vires.

Citations:

Times 19-Jun-1995, Independent 12-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Income Related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 1807), Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87777

Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; Housing Benefit Review Board, Ex Parte Kapur: QBD 28 Jun 2000

An application for a loan or grant toward the costs of repair could constitute steps being taken to make premises habitable. The applicant owned a substantial property which had fallen into disrepair. He claimed housing benefit for the property where he actually lived. The refusal of housing benefit because of the capital value of the other property was incorrect. The rules allowed a disregard for the value of a property being repaired.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 Sch 5 para 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Benefits

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.85592

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