Chief Adjudication Officer v Brunt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Havers,Lord Brandon of Oakbrook,Lord Templeman,Lord Oliver of Aylmerton |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 1988 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1988] UKHL J0303-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 03 March 1988 |
[1988] UKHL J0303-2
House of Lords
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Havers
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Lord Templeman
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman. I agree with it and for the reasons he gives I would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading the draft speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman, with which I agree, and for the reasons which he has given would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman. I agree with it, and for the reasons which he gives I would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
The question is whether, upon the true construction of regulation 7(1)( e) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, temporary part-time employment under a community programme scheme is relevant in determining whether the employee is "employed to the full extent normal in his case." The appellant, Mr. Brunt, was employed for two-and-a-half days a week under a community programme scheme. He claimed unemployment benefit for the remaining three days of the week. His claim was rejected by the adjudication officer and his appeal to the St. Helen's Social Security Appeal Tribunal was dismissed. The appellant, with leave of a commissioner, appealed successfully to the Tribunal of Social Security Commissioners but their decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal (Kerr and Ralph Gibson L.JJ. and Sir George Waller). The appellant now appeals with leave of the Court of Appeal.
By the Social Security Act 1975, as amended, a man of working age who has made the minimum contributions to the national insurance fund in the course of employment is entitled under section 14(1)( a)-
"to unemployment benefit in respect of any day of unemployment which forms part of a period of interruption of employment;"
By section 14(8) the amount payable by way of benefit for any day of unemployment is 1/6th of the appropriate weekly rate. The weekly rate for present purposes was £30.80 per week or slightly more than £5 per day.
By section 17(1)( a) a day shall not be treated as a day of unemployment unless on that day the claimant for benefit is available to be employed. During the period of his claim the appellant was always available to be employed.
The appellant was employed full time after he left school for about five years. He then became unemployed and qualified for unemployment benefit which was paid to him from January 1982 until January 1983. The appellant then ceased to be entitled to unemployment benefit because by section 18-
"(1) A person who, in respect of any period of interruption of employment, has been entitled to unemployment benefit for 312 days shall not thereafter be entitled to that benefit for any day of unemployment (whether in the same or a subsequent period of interruption of employment) unless before that day he has requalified for benefit."
After a period of unemployment which lasted for one year and nine months, the appellant on the 25 October 1983 was employed under a community programme scheme for two and a half days on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays in each week. He was employed initially for six months but his employment could have been continued for a maximum period of a further six months. By section 18(2) of the Act of 1975, a person who has exhausted his right to unemployment benefit requalifies for benefit when he has again been in employment for 13 weeks and has worked for 16 hours a week or more. The appellant re-qualified for benefit 13 weeks after he began work under the community programme scheme. The appellant earned under the community scheme £41 later increased to £44 per week for his employment. After the first 13 weeks had expired and he had re-qualified for unemployment benefit he applied for unemployment benefit in respect of Monday, Tuesday and Saturday. If his application had been successful he would have received just over £15 to add to his wages of £41 or £44.
By section 17(2) of the Act of 1975 regulations may make provision as to the days which are or are not to be treated for the purposes of unemployment benefit as days of unemployment. By regulation 7(1) of the Regulations of 1983 made pursuant to the Act, for the purposes of unemployment benefit:
( e) … a day shall not be treated as a day of unemployment if on that day a person does no work and is a person who does not ordinarily work on every day in a week … but who is, in the week in which the said day occurs, employed to the full extent normal in his case.…"
For the period of five years after the appellant left school he was a person who ordinarily worked on every day in the week. When, after his period of one year and nine months unemployment, he began work under the community programme scheme, he was a person during the period of that employment who did not ordinarily work on every day in the week. In a week in which he claimed for benefit, he was not employed to the full extent normal in his case if normality is referable to the period of five years full-time work after he left...
To continue reading
Request your trial