Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2007] All ER (D) 421 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2007] EWCA Civ 495
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Ward, Dyson and Thomas LJJ

Representation Simon Cox (instructed by Will Rolt) for the appellant.
  Martin Chamberlain (instructed by the Solicitor for Department for Work and Pensions) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 24 May 2007

Catchwords

Social security - Benefit - Overpayment - Recovery - Incapacity benefit - Claimant starting work - Claimant's incapacity benefit suspended - Appeal to appeal tribunal dismissed - Whether tribunal required to deal with issues not expressly raised by party to proceedings - Whether requirement to notify Secretary of State that claimant started work sufficiently clearly expressed - Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, reg 32(1) - Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (Transitional) Regulations 1995, reg 17 - Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, reg 7(2)(c).

The Case

Social security Benefit. Where the claimant had started work and had failed to notify the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State made a decision superseding the award to him of incapacity benefit, and found that the claimant had been overpaid and that that sum was recoverable under reg32(1) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987. The claimant unsuccessfully appealed against those decisions. The appeal tribunal had not erred in failing to consider reg7(2)(c) of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, because it had not been an issue raised by the appeal. However, if the Secretary of State wished to impose a requirement on claimants within the meaning of reg32(1), it was incumbent on him to make it absolutely clear what he had intended. Accordingly the appeal would be allowed.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.