Category:Welfare benefits cases
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| PM v SSWP [2025] UKUT 85 (AAC) —
ADHD and DLA A person with ADHD is suffering from a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain under regulation 12(5) Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991.
| 2025-04-13 | 2025 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| Tendring District Council v AB [2024] EWCA Civ 1248 —
Housing Benefit, litigation capacity "At the hearing a number of separate issues were before the court namely: (i) the capacity of AB to litigate and the appointment of the Official Solicitor to act as his litigation friend; (ii) Tendring's application to discontinue against AB; (iii) Tendring's application for an order retrospectively regularising all steps taken in the appeal in respect of AB prior to the Official Solicitor's appointment; (iv) in the event that AB continued in the proceedings, an order for costs protection."
| 2024-12-12 | 2024 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| Tendring District Council v SSWP [2024] EWCA Civ 1509 —
Housing Benefit The council had overpaid Housing Benefit to AB, but were unable to recover it from his wife CD, because in the proceedings CD had only been appointee/representative for AB rather than a party in her own right.
Essex search<mw:editsection page="Category:Welfare benefits cases" section="1">Essex search</mw:editsection>This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:<span ..→ | 2024-12-12 | 2024 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| MOC v SSWP [2022] EWCA Civ 1 —
DLA in hospital The rule providing that payment of Disability Living Allowance to an adult is suspended after 28 days in an NHS hospital (the aim being to prevent duplication of public funding to meet the same purpose) did not breach the patient's rights under Article 14 read with A1P1 ECHR. The Court of Appeal also discussed the relevance of capacity to identifying a status for Article 14 purposes. EssexThis case has been summarised on page 44 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 121, April 2022). ICLRThe ICLR have kindly agreed for their WLR (D) case report to be reproduced below. For full details, see ..→ | 2022-04-13 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| SS v UK 40356/10 [2011] ECHR 107 —
Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners Questions to the parties: "Insofar as their complaints concern the provisions of the Social Security (Persons Serving a Sentence of Imprisonment Detained in Hospital) Regulations 2010, have the fourth and fifth applicants exhausted domestic remedies? Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their prisoner status and/or their disabilities contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1?"
| 2021-03-11 | 2011 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| SS v UK 40356/10 54466/10 [2015] ECHR 520 — {{Case
|Date=2015/03/21 |NCN=[2015] ECHR 520M |Court=European Court of Human Rights |Judges=Guido Raimondi, Paivi Hirvela, George Nicolaou, Ledi Bianku, Paul Mahoney, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Yonko Grozev |Parties=SS, FA, United Kingdom, HB, EM, ALF |Judicial history first case=R (EM) v SSWP [2009] EWHC 454 (Admin) |Sentence=Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners |Summary=Patients subject to s47/49 and s45A argued that denying them the social security benefits that are paid to other detained patients was contrary to Article 14, taken with Article 1 of Protocol No 1. The ECtHR rejected the applications as being manifestly unfounded. |Detail===Information Note== The following is on BAILII with neutral citation number [2015] ECHR 542B: Information Note on the Court’s case-law 185 May 2015 S.S. and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 40356/10 and 54466/10 Decision 21.4.2015 [Section IV] See: [2015] ECHR 520M & [2011] ECHR 107M Article 14 Discrimination Alleged discrimination in entitlement to social security benefits of prisoners in psychiatric care compared to other persons detained for psychiatric treatment: inadmissible Facts - Under the relevant domestic legislation prisoners were not entitled to social security benefits while serving a prison sentence, including during any periods they were required to spend in psychiatric hospital pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983. Conversely, persons not sentenced to a term of imprisonment but who were detained for psychiatric treatment either as civil patients under section 3 of the 1983 Act or as an alternative to prison under section 37 of the Act (“section 37 patients”) retained their entitlement to benefits. The applicants were all convicted and sentenced prisoners who had served, or were serving, part of their sentences in psychiatric hospitals under the relevant provisions of the 1983 Act. In their application to the European Court, they complained that denying them the social security benefits that were paid to other patients being treated under the Act was contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Law - Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: It was undisputed that social security benefits fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the status of prisoner was covered by the term “other status” in Article 14. Article 14 was thus applicable. (a) Analogous position: The Court reiterated that prisoners did not forfeit their Convention rights in prison, although the manner and extent to which they could enjoy them would inevitably be influenced by the context. Whether or not a prisoner could, for the purposes of Article 14, claim to be in an analogous position to other categories of the population depended on the subject-matter of the complaint. Although the applicants had asserted that the appropriate comparator group in their case was other detained patients, the Court considered that in reality the applicants had significant elements in common both with other patients and other prisoners. While their stay in hospital undoubtedly served a curative purpose, and not a punitive one, as a matter of domestic law they remained under a sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, even if it was accepted that the applicants were in all other respects under the same legal regime as section 37 patients, the difference between the two groups in terms of criminal-law status could not be regarded as insignificant or irrelevant. Although this did not preclude a comparison with section 37, the applicants’ status as prisoners was “very relevant” to the assessment of compliance with the other requirements of Article 14. (b) Objective and reasonable justification: The Court accepted as being within the respondent State’s broad margin of appreciation, both as a matter of penal and social policy, the decision to apply a general rule disqualifying convicted prisoners from social security benefits. It followed that the aim of the relevant regulations, which was to apply this exclusionary rule consistently and to correct anomalies, could not be said to be manifestly without reasonable foundation. Fully assimilating the categories of serving prisoners and prisoners transferred to a psychiatric hospital for the purposes of social security could not be said to be lacking in justification, but instead fell within the range of permissible choices open to the domestic authorities. Nor did the Court discern any failure to respect the requirement of proportionality. The exclusion from entitlement to social security benefits was no broader than necessary, being coterminous with the sentence of imprisonment. In the case of a determinate sentence, those detained beyond what would normally have been the date of release had their entitlements restored, placing them on the same footing as other detained patients. Until such time, the applicants’ essential needs, material and medical, were met in any event and they received an allowance to meet their incidental expenses. No different analysis was called for in respect of the two applicants subject to a life sentence who had already served the minimum term imposed on them. Accordingly, the difference in treatment complained of did not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). (See also Shelley v. the United Kingdom, 23800/06, 4 January 2008, Information Note 104; Clift v. the United Kingdom, 7205/07, 13 July 2010, Information Note 132; and Stummer v. Austria [GC], 37452/02, 7 July 2011, Information Note 143) © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. | 2021-03-10 | 2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| DB (as executor of the estate of OE) v SSWP [2018] UKUT 46 (AAC) —
Social security appointeeship "The main grievance of Mr B, who brings this appeal in his capacity as executor of his late Aunt Miss E’s estate, is the Secretary of State’s decision to make Birmingham City Council Miss E’s social security appointee. When the council were made Miss E’s appointee, Mr B held an enduring power of attorney authorising him to deal with her financial affairs. Appointment decisions do not attract a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Neither that tribunal, nor the Upper Tribunal, has jurisdiction to entertain an ‘appeal’ against an appointment decision. However, I do have some concerns about the way in which the council’s appointment application was handled. I decide to express some views on that subject. My purpose in simply to provide some assistance to the DWP and local authorities in their efforts to operate the appointee system effectively and properly." | 2018-02-26 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| R (Mitocariu) v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 126 (Admin) —
Hospital pocket money Two hospital order patients contended that if for any reason they were not in receipt of benefits then the trust should provide regular payments to ensure their dignity was maintained whilst in care. (1) The trust did have a power, arising from s43 NHS Act 2006 (which identified the functions of foundation trusts), and either s46 or s47 (which provided sufficiently general powers), to make payments to patients. Any contract with NHS England purporting to restrict the statutory power would be ultra vires. Similarly, any payment outside the s43 purposes (namely, the provision of services to individuals for or in connection with the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness and the promotion and protection of public health) would be ultra vires. (2) The amount, timing and frequency of payments was a matter for the discretion of the Defendant, taking into account all relevant factors, including the ..→ | 2018-02-02 | 2018 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| R (MM) v SSWP [2013] EWCA Civ 1565, [2013] MHLO 132 — (1) The Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal's decision that the process for assessing eligibility for Employment Support Allowance (involving the claimant completing a questionnaire and attending a face to face interview) placed mental health patients at a 'substantial disadvantage' (under the Equality Act 2010) when compared with other claimants. (2) In relation to the proposal that obtaining further medical evidence in such cases would be a 'reasonable adjustment', the UT had adjourned for further evidence, directing the SSWP to investigate its reasonableness: the adjournment was lawful but the directions were quashed. | 2013-12-30 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
| Obrey v SSWP [2013] EWCA Civ 1584, [2013] MHLO 129 — (1) The Upper Tribunal had not erred in law in finding that the cessation of Housing Benefit after 52 weeks as a hospital patient (which indirectly discriminated against the mentally ill) was justified . (2) The Court of Appeal discussed the limitations on appeals against the specialist Upper Tribunal. | 2013-12-30 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
| SSWP v Slavin [2011] EWCA Civ 1515 — 'The respondent is resident in a specialist care home for people with autistic spectrum disorders and similar conditions. The cost of his accommodation is paid for by the National Health Service. The home is registered as a care home, not a nursing home. Its staff are trained to meet the needs of residents but do not have any medical or nursing qualifications. The specific issue in the appeal is whether the respondent is "maintained free of charge while undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient … in a hospital or similar institution under [the National Health Service Act 2006]", within the meaning of reg. 12A of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991, so as to be disentitled to receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance for which he was a claimant.' | 2011-12-10 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
| R (RJM) v SSWP [2007] EWCA Civ 614 — "For the reasons I have given I would hold that the right to IS is a possession within A1P1 but that RJM's appeal must be dismissed because a person without accommodation does not have an "other status" within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention. If, contrary to that view, RJM does have such a status, the refusal to pay DP to those who do not have accommodation is not unlawful under the Convention because the Secretary of State has justified their differential treatment. I would therefore dismiss the appeal." | 2010-08-07 | 2007 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
| R (D and M) v SSWP [2010] EWCA Civ 18 — {{Case
|Date=2010/01/27 |NCN=[2010] EWCA Civ 18M |ICLR=[2010] WLR (D) 20 |ICLR ID=2006002101 |Other citations=[2010] 1 WLR 1782B, (2010) 112 BMLR 140, 112 BMLR 140 |Court=Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |Judges=Waller, Carnwath, Patten |Parties=D, M, EM, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions |Judicial history first case=R (EM) v SSWP [2009] EWHC 454 (Admin) |Sentence=Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners |Summary=(1) That prisoners detained under s47, s47/49 or s45A, in contrast with civil patients or hospital order patients, receive no welfare benefits until their release date is not unlawful discrimination under Article 14 taken with A1P1. (2) On a proper construction of the statutory language, lifers detained under the MHA are entitled to Income Support or State Pension Credit when they reach their tariff expiry date. |Detail===Subsequent legislation== Because the construction argument (see point (2) above) went against the government, they changed the law. See:
| 2010-01-27 | 2010 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Welfare benefits cases |
| R (EM) v SSWP [2009] EWHC 454 (Admin) —
Welfare benefits and transferred prisoners The Regulations which deprive of welfare benefits transferred prisoners (s47/49 and s45A patients until they would be entitled to release if in prison) are lawful; this is because there is enough of a relevant difference between them and civil/s37 patients to justify different treatment (i.e. they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment to which they remain subject); in general, this applies all determinate and indeterminate sentence prisoners, including post-tariff lifers, technical lifers being the only exception because they had not been considered when the Regulations were drawn up and there is not enough of a relevant difference present. | 2009-03-13 | 2009 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
| R (RD) v SSWP [2008] EWHC 2635 (Admin) — Post-tariff lifers who have been transferred to hospital are not entitled to receive Income Support. | 2008-11-24 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
| Stec v UK 65731/01 [2006] ECHR 393 — Judgment of Grand Chamber. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14. | 2008-11-24 | 2006 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
| Stec v UK 65731/01 [2005] ECHR 924 — Admissibility decision. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14. | 2008-11-24 | 2005 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
| R (RJM) v SSWP [2008] UKHL 63 — Social welfare payments come within the scope of Article 1 Protocol 1; homelessness is an "other status" under Article 14; depriving the homeless of disability premiums was justified; the Court of Appeal is free (but not obliged) to follow an ECtHR decision rather than a previous inconsistent CA decision, but (absent wholly exceptional circumstances) must follow any previous House of Lords decision. | 2008-11-23 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases |
Article titles
The following 18 pages are in this category.
R
- R (D and M) v SSWP (2010) EWCA Civ 18
- R (EM) v SSWP (2009) EWHC 454 (Admin)
- R (Mitocariu) v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (2018) EWHC 126 (Admin)
- R (MM) v SSWP (2013) EWCA Civ 1565, (2013) MHLO 132
- R (RD) v SSWP (2008) EWHC 2635 (Admin)
- R (RJM) v SSWP (2007) EWCA Civ 614
- R (RJM) v SSWP (2008) UKHL 63