Tag: Benefits

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 to – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
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

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 from – 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 . .
Cited – RR 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

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:

Cited – RR 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 from – 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. . .
At first instance – MA 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 from – MA 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 . .
Cited – Burnip 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 . .
Cited – Bracking 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 . . . .
Cited – JS 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:

Cited – McLaughlin, 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 . .
Cited – DA 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 . .
Cited – RR 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

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:

Cited – RR 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:

Cited – Carson, 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 . .
Cited – Hooper 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 . .
Cited – Kjeldsen, 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 . .
Cited – The 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 . .
Cited – Petrovic 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 . .
Cited – S, 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 . .
Cited – Engel 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Stewart 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 . .
Cited – RR 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:

Cited – Mountview Court Properties v Devlin 1970
. .

Cited by:

Approved – G 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 . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick 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:

Cited – Regina (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:

Cited – Hinchy 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:

Cited – Regina (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:

Opinion – Hartmann 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 from – Secretary 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:

Cited – Secretary 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:

Cited – Secretary 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:

Cited – Carson 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 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

Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Rent Officer Service and Another Ex Parte Kelly: CA 18 Apr 1995

The Secretary of State was not entitled to be served with notice of all Judicial Review applications on benefits. He was not sufficiently directy connected,

Citations:

Ind Summary 08-May-1995, Times 18-Apr-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Same Ex Parte Kelly HL 11-Jul-1996
The claimant sought to challenge a refusal of the Housing Authority to pay housing benefit. The Secretary of State had made the relevant Regulations determining eligibility for benefits. If the challenge were successful, the Secretary of State would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87192

Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Same Ex Parte Kelly: HL 11 Jul 1996

The claimant sought to challenge a refusal of the Housing Authority to pay housing benefit. The Secretary of State had made the relevant Regulations determining eligibility for benefits. If the challenge were successful, the Secretary of State would be affected financially by reason of his obligation to pay sums to the Authority.
Held: The Secretary of State is not to be made party to judicial review proceedings even though he would be the ultimate payer. Though a party directly affected by the claim may be joined as an interested party, Lord Keith said: ‘That a person is directly affected by something connotes that he is affected without the intervention of any intermediate agency. In the present case, if the applications for judicial review are successful the Secretary of State will not have to pay housing benefit to the applicants either directly or through the agency of the local authority. What will happen is that up to 95% will be added to the subsidy paid by the Secretary of State to the local authority after the end of the financial year. The Secretary of State would certainly be affected by the decision, and it may be said that he would inevitably or necessarily be affected. But he would in my opinion, be only indirectly affected by reason of his collateral obligation to pay subsidy to the local authority.’ The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on such judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.
The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.

Judges:

Lord Keith

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1103

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court O 53 r593)

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Rent Officer Service and Another Ex Parte Kelly CA 18-Apr-1995
The Secretary of State was not entitled to be served with notice of all Judicial Review applications on benefits. He was not sufficiently directy connected, . .

Cited by:

Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Cited – Nemeti and Others v Sabre Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Dec-2013
The court considered the power of courts to allow substitution of a new party after the expiration of the limitation period. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Administrative, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87193

Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council ex parte Sarhangi: QBD 9 Dec 1998

Where someone entered the UK with permission but overstayed, was imprisoned and ordered to be deported, but could not for some reason leave despite being willing, that person was not dis-entitled to receive residential assistance under the Act.

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-1998

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21(1)

Benefits

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87106

Regina v Birmingham City Council, Ex Parte Youngson (A Child): QBD 9 Jan 2001

The authority’s policy not to make an educational grant unless the parents demonstrated hardship, that financial assistance was unavailable elsewhere, and that no alternative to the educational avenue chosen was available, or that other exceptional circumstances applied, was lawful. In this case the student’s need for dancing tuition could be satisfied in a day school with supporting special tuition. The authority had a discretion about such payments, and in this case the discretion had not been exercised ultra vires. Parental preferences had to be balanced against unreasonable burdens on public expenditure.

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 518, Scolarship and Other Benefits Regulations 1997 No 1443

Education, Benefits

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86139

Regina v Adjudication Officer Ex Parte B: QBD 27 Jul 1998

An asylum seeker who had been awarded disability living allowance before the withdrawal of benefits to such persons should continue to receive payment until his allowance became subject to review under the standard section

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 30; Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneuos Amendments Regulations 1996/30

Benefits

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86034

R(Is) 2/94: SSC 20 Apr 1994

The Income Support payment of interest for 16 weeks at half rate had to be restarted after a break in claim. The Department could not continue from where the previous support had been paid.

Citations:

Gazette 20-Apr-1994

Benefits

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85627

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council ex parte Damoah: QBD 31 Dec 1998

A local authority, having once decided that a child was in need of welfare assistance, could not withdraw that, after the mother refused assistance to return to her own country, where the child’s long terms interests could properly be served by such assistance.

Citations:

Times 31-Dec-1998, Gazette 13-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 Part III

Children, Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85291

Regina v Bristol City Council, Ex Parte Jacobs: QBD 16 Nov 1999

The payment of water rates was not part of the obligation of a local authority paying housing benefit paid by the tenant to the water supplier. Water rates were not paid by her ‘in respect of, or in consequence of, use and occupation of the dwelling’ At common law a person in occupation of land under such terms would themselves be expected to contribute financially. The words must be read restrictively, and benefit was not payable.

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 No 1971 10 (1) (d)

Benefits, Housing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85148

Paula Gomez Rivero v Bundesanstalt Fur Arbeit: ECJ 6 Oct 1999

A diplomat working in another member state was entitled to choose to remain governed as regards any state benefits, by the sending state. The exercise of this option could not operate however to deprive his family members of the right to take advantage of better benefits applying in the state where they in fact resided.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Oct-1999, C-211/97, Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/99 14

Benefits, European

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84610

Mulvey 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 one element in the calculation of the benefit to which the claimant was entitled. There was a net entitlement.

Judges:

Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1995, 1996 SC 8

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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: . .
Cited – Secretary 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.

Benefits, Scotland

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84122

Mohammed Khurshid Khan: SSC 9 Mar 1994

A notice of deposit which had been lodged at the Land Registry was capable of being an encumbrance on the land for benefits law purposes, despite it not being a formal charge on the land under land law. Capital disregard is for fixed period, the onus to justify discharge lay on Adjudication Officer.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Mar-1994, CIS/255/89

Benefits, Registered Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83792

Janicki v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Feb 2001

The applicant had to show that her injuries arose from the use of a ‘hand held vibrating tool.’ The tool did not itself vibrate, but its use involved resting her hands on a vibrating surface, so as to cause the tool to vibrate. She came to suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
Held: The source of the vibration was not crucial to the claim, and therefore it succeeded.

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 No 967, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Benefits

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82491

Fitzwilliam Executive Search Ltd v Bestuur Van Het Landelijk Institut Sociale Verzekeringen Case C-202/97: ECJ 15 Mar 2000

An E101 certificate as to the payment of benefits issued by one member state with respect to the responsibility for social security payments was binding on the member state which received such a certificate. Where however there were proper doubts as to the correctness of the facts asserted as underlying the certificate it was proper to challenge the certificate., and the certificate should be re-examined and if appropriate withdrawn.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2000

Employment, Benefits, European

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80591

Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 900; Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 90 C-23/08: ECJ 4 Jun 2009

ECJ European citizenship Free movement of persons Articles 12 EC and 39 EC Directive 2004/38/EC Article 24(2) – Assessment of validity Nationals of a Member State Professional activity in another Member State Level of remuneration and duration of the activity – Retention of the status of ‘worker’ – Right to receive benefits in favour of job-seekers

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-23/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Opinion – Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 900; Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 90 C-23/08 ECJ 12-Mar-2009
ECJ (Opinion) European citizenship Freedom of movement for persons – Concept of worker Validity of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC Resident nationals of other Member States who have become unemployed after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608371

Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 900; Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 90 – C-22/08: ECJ 4 Jun 2009

ECJ European citizenship Free movement of persons Articles 12 EC and 39 EC Directive 2004/38/EC Article 24(2) Assessment of validity Nationals of a Member State Professional activity in another Member State Level of remuneration and duration of the activity Retention of the status of ‘worker’ Right to receive benefits in favour of job-seekers

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2009:344, [2009] EUECJ C-22/08, [2009] All ER (EC) 747

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 900; Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nurnberg 90 – C-22/08 ECJ 12-Mar-2009
ECJ (Opinion) European citizenship – Freedom of movement for persons – Concept of worker Validity of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC Resident nationals of other Member States who have become unemployed . .

Cited by:

Cited – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608370

Regina v Social Security Commissioner ex parte Akbar: QBD 29 Jan 1992

‘Temporary absence’ from the country did not require there to be an intended fixed date of return to be known at start of the absence, and a claim for benefits was not thereby defeated. The word must be given its ordinary and natural meaning, which is ‘not permanent’.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Jan-1992

Statutes:

Social Security Act 1975 12, Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975 (1975 No 563) 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88067