Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 1994 |
| Date | 30 November 1994 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Glidewell, Lord Justice Mann and Lord Justice Millett
Social security - severe disability premium - residence with parents
A severely disabled adult who lived in her parents' house was "residing with" her parents but her parents were not "residing with" her for the purposes of the paragraph 13(2)(a)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations (SI 1987 No 1967) and her claim for the payment of a severe disability premium had been wrongly rejected.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment, allowing the appeal of Ann Marie Bate, a severely disabled adult who lived with her parents, against the decision of a social security commissioner on January 13, 1993 that her income support entitlement should not include a severe disability premium under section 135 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
Paragraph 13 in Schedule 2 to the 1987 Regulations provide: "(2) … a claimant shall be treated as being a severely disabled person if, and only if (a) in the case of a single claimant … (ii) … he has no non-dependants aged 18 or over residing with him…"
Regulation 3 provides: "(1) … `non-dependant' means any person, except someone to whom paragraph (2) applies, who normally resides with a claimant.
"(2) This paragraph applies to … (c) a person who jointly occupies the claimant's dwelling…"
Mr David Pannick, QC and Ms Bethan Harris for the applicant; Mr Stephen Richards and Mr Richard McManus for the Chief Adjudication Officer and the Secretary of State for Social Security.
LORD JUSTICE GLIDEWELL said that Mr Richards had submitted that the applicant lived with her parents in their house and, therefore her parents normally resided with her. Therefore they were non-dependants unless they came within one of the exceptions in regulation 3(2).
At first sight her parents might be thought to be "persons who jointly occupy" the applicant's dwelling, and thus within exception (c). However, the phrase "any person … who normally resides with" and "a person who jointly occupies" must have been intended to have different meanings. If that were not so, exception (c) would effectively cancel out the effect of normal residence with a claimant.
Mr Richards had argued that the phrase "jointly occupies" connoted a legal relationship between the joint occupiers, so that the occupation of each of them was as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer and Another
...within the meaning of reg 3. Accordingly, the severe disability premium was not payable to the claimant. Decision of the Court of Appeal [1995] 3 FCR 145 Statutory provisions referred to:Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, reg 3. Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, regs 3, 9 ......
-
R (Kadhim) v Brent London Borough Council Housing Benefit Review Board
...had to be given its ordinary meaning: a view also taken, in respect of different regulations, by Lord Slynn of Hadley in Bate v Chief Adjudication Officer [1996] 1 WLR 814. Regulation 3(4) did not, in its natural meaning, provide such counter-indication so as to substitute for a general app......
-
R v Housing Benefit Review Board and Another ex parte and Another
...of the Court of Appeal in Borough of Thamesdown v. Goonery (1995) February 13th; and the decision of the House of Lords in Bate v. Chief Adjudication Officer [1996] 1 WLR 814, particularly the speech of Lord Slynn of Hadley at 823C to G. In Dadson, Henry J. was concerned to explore the mean......
-
CIS 20002 2000
...Bate v. Chief Adjudication Officer [1996] 1. WLR 814 [R(IS) 12/96], reversing the Court of Appeal’s decision in that case, reported in [1995] 3 FCR 145 and in the Times Newspaper on 12 December 1994. It is partly as a result of those changes in the law that the complicated situation arose i......