Metzger v Department of Health and Social Security
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STAMP |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1978 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1978] EWCA Civ J0210-8 |
| Docket Number | 1977 M. No.362 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 10 February 1978 |
[1978] EWCA Civ J0210-8
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
(On appeal from The Vice-Chancellor)
Lord Justice Stamp,
Lord Justice Orr
and
Lord Justice Eveleigh
MR. B. A. HYTNER, Q.C. and MR. J. M. H. FARMER (instructed by Mr. H.E.G. Hodge) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, The Rt. Hon. PETER ARCHER, Q.C., and MR. P. L. GIBSON (instructed by The Solicitor to The Department of Health and Social Security) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
The Judgment I am about to read is the Judgment of the Court.
This is an appeal against an order of Vice-Chancellor Megarry made on 25th March 1977 whereby certain questions of construction arising under Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975, which had been raised as preliminary questions in the action, were answered in a sense contrary to the submissions made on behalf of, the Plaintiffs and the action was dismissed.
Each of the Plaintiffs is and was at all material times entitled to a Category 'A' retirement pension within the meaning of Section 28 of the Social Security Act 1975. By the joint effect of that Section and the Fourth Schedule, Part I of the Act, the weekly rate of such a pension was £11.60. One finds, however, in Sections 124 and 125 of the Act machinery for raising or, to use the language of those sections, "up-rating of" benefits.
The action was commenced by writ issued on 24th January 1977, to which the Department of Health and Social Security is the Defendant. In the action the Plaintiffs claim that the Secretary of State, in carrying out his duty to increase the rate of their benefits pursuant to Section 125 of the Act, has failed to comply with the terms of the Section. Whether or not the Plaintiffs' submission is well founded turns to a great extent on the true construction of Sections 124 and 125, and after delivery of the Defence an Order was made on March 1977 whereby, pursuant to Order 33, Rule 3, of the Rules of the Supreme Court, it was ordered that the questions of construction should be set down for hearing and disposed of before the trial of the action. We would add, in relation tothe action, that the Solicitor-General appearing for the defendant concedes that the Plaintiffs are entitled to bring this action and, if their submissions on the construction of the Section are well founded, to have an appropriate declaration.
Before turning to or reading Sections 124 and 125, it is convenient to say that one finds in Schedule 4 of the Act, under the heading "Rates of benefits, grants and increases for dependants" a table describing in the left-hand column certain benefits, including under number 8, "Category 'A' Retirement Pensions", (Section 28), and in the right-hand column under the heading "Weekly Rate", specifying the sums to be paid per week. This explains some of the language of Sections 124 and 125.
Sections 124 and 125, so far as material, provide as follows: "124(1) The Secretary of State may by order increase any of the sums specified in - (a) Schedule 4 to this Act;" - (b), (c) and (d) are not relevant. "(2) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. (3) The Secretary of State shall lay with any draft order under this section a copy of a report by the Government Actuary giving the latter's opinion on the likely effect on the National Insurance Fund of the making of the order."
In Section 125: "(1) The Secretary of State shall in the tax year 1975-1976 and each subsequent tax year review the sums specified in -" and there follows in (a) "Schedule 4 to this Act" and other provisions to which I need not refer, and then (b) to which I need not refer, and then the sub-section continues: "for the purpose of determining whether those sums have retained their value in relation to the general level ofearnings or prices obtaining in Great Britain.
"(2) For the purposes of any such review the Secretary of State shall estimate the general level of earnings and prices in such manner as he thinks fit and shall have regard either to earnings or prices according to which he considers more advantageous to beneficiaries, except that he shall have regard only to prices as respects …" and then there follow certain of the sums to which I need not refer.
(3) If on any such review the Secretary of State concludes that any of the sums in question have not retained their value as mentioned above, he shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an up-rating order increasing those sums at least to such extent as he thinks necessary to restore their value.
"(4) If a draft order laid before Parliament in pursuance of this section is approved by resolution of each House, the Secretary of State shall make the order in the form of the draft."
It is necessary to add that under Section 126 of the Act it is provided that if on a review under Section 125 the Secretary of State determines that he is not required to prepare and lay the draft of an up-rating Order, he shall instead lay before each House of Parliament a report explaining his reasons for arriving at that determination.
The Court has before it an agreed statement of facts. From this it appears that in or about May 1975 the Secretary of State carried out a review inter alia of the said weekly rate of £11.60 and concluded that such weekly rate had not retained its value in relation to the general level of earnings or prices obtained in Great Britain. There was, so it was stated, a dispute as to the period to which the Secretary of State hadregard in considering changes in the general level of prices and earnings for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ho Min Choo and Another v Jutamo Sdn Bhd
-
Point Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd
... ... -v—Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 Metzger -v—Dept of Social Security [1977] 3 All ER 444 ... ...
-
Paradise Island Ltd v Knowles et Al
...of the Court to decisions such as the following:– Re Clay [1919] 1 Ch. 66, Wallersteiner v. Moir [1974] 1 W.L.R. 921, Metzger v. Department of Health and Social Security [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1046, Meadows Indemnity Co. Ltd. v. Insurance Corporation of Ireland PLC. [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep. 621. 50 No......
-
Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Yates
... ... OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION ... Mr. Commissioner Mesher ... The Department's calculations were again based on November 1975 rates ... The working of the system was described in Metzger v DHSS [1977] 3 All ER 444 , in which Sir Robert Megarry ... ...