Hassall and Pether v Secretary of State for Social Security CCR 1 1993
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | N/A |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1994 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Compensation recovery |
| Docket Number | CCR 1 1993 |
| Appellant | Hassall and Pether v Secretary of State for Social Security |
R(CR) 1/95
(Hassall v. Secretary of State for Social Security)
(Pether v. Secretary of State for Social Security)
CA (Nourse and Henry LJJ and Potts J) CCR/1/1993
14.12.94 CCR/2/1993
Benefits in payment prior to accident suffered by claimant - whether relevant that same amount of benefit would have been paid if accident had not occurred - whether relevant that benefit would have been paid on different basis if accident had not occurred - whether recovery limited to element of income support personal to claimant
In each case the claimant was paid the balance of damages by the compensator after deduction of benefit in favour of the Secretary of State in accordance with a certificate of total benefit paid to the claimant. The claimant appealed the decision of a social security appeal tribunal to the Commissioner who substituted a decision that because the basis of payment of income support had changed, the totality of the benefit paid to the claimant, being or including income support, was paid in consequence of the accident and was therefore recoverable by the Secretary of State. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that (i) the same amount of benefit would have been paid had the accident not happened so it was not paid as a consequence of the accident, (ii) income support would have continued as the claimant was still unemployed, and (iii) that in any event recovery of income support was limited to that part of the applicable amount relating to the claimant himself
Held, dismissing the appeal, that
1. as to argument (i), benefit paid after the accident was founded on medical certificates dealing with injuries caused by the accident and was therefore paid as a direct consequence of the accident
2. as to argument (ii), there are no specific words or other reasons to limit recovery of income support as suggested by the claimant;
3. as to argument (iii), the unfairness to the claimants in these cases does not stem from the operation of the legislation for recovery of benefit from compensation payments but from the failure to claim damages in respect of the benefit recoverable by the Secretary of State.
decision of the court of appeal
Mr. G. Burrell (instructed by Alan Farnell and Co., Sheffield, and Clarke Willmott and Clarke, Yeovil) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
Mr. P. Vallance QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
HENRY LJ: We have before us two appeals from one of the social security Commissioners, Mr. J. J. Skinner QC, challenging the recoupment by the Secretary of State for Social Security of certain social security benefits paid to the applicants from sums due to them as damages under the compromise of personal injury actions brought by them following their involvement in separate road traffic accidents. This recoupment was found to have been authorised by the relatively new statutory scheme for the recoupment of social security benefits that was introduced by section 22 of, and Schedule 4 to, the Social Security Act 1989, now contained, in an amended form in Part IV of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Secretary of State is the respondent to these proceedings. The tortfeasors were not represented before us, though insurers may have an interest in the reasoning by which the conclusion is reached.
The facts in both cases are the same. Each applicant was unemployed at the time of the accident. Mr. Hassall was in receipt of unemployment benefit and income support. Mr. Pether had been unemployed for more than twelve months and so was in receipt of income support only. Those benefits were then available to them because they complied with the statutory requirements of what is now section 124 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, namely each man was over 18, he had no income, he was unemployed, but was available for and was actively seeking employment. In each case the benefit paid to the applicant was higher than it would otherwise have been because he was a married man, with young children in Mr. Pether’s case.
In each case they continued to receive approximately the same amount in benefit after the accident as they had before: Mr. Hassall in the form of sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, and income support, and Mr. Pether, income support. But they received the post‑accident benefits on a different basis, namely that while still unemployed and without income, by their production of weekly medical certificates relating to the injuries sustained in their accidents, each applicant was exempted from the requirements to be available for work because he was incapable of work, being entitled to sickness benefit: see regulation 8(1) of, and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to, the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, SI 1987 No. 1967.
Each applicant settled his personal injury action on the basis that no claim could be made for loss of earnings during the time of incapacity because he would not have been able to find work even if fit. So effectively the claims were solely for general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. What then happened can be illustrated from the figures in Mr. Hassall’s case...
To continue reading
Request your trial