R (Bui) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (Onakoya) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judges Farbey,Wikeley,Church |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 189 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Claims,payments - required information,Human rights law - Protocol 1 (protection of property),Church,TH,Farbey,J,Wikeley,N,Three Judge Panel |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 29 July 2022 |
R (Bui) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions;
R (Onakoya) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2022] UKUT 189 (AAC)
0
Case Nos: UA-2021-000580-JR and UA-2022-000464-JR
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
ON TRANSFER FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before :
MRS JUSTICE FARBEY, CHAMBER PRESIDENT
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WIKELEY
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHURCH
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF
Ms NGOC HONG THI BUI Claimant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS Defendant
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF
Ms IDOWU ONAKOYA Claimant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS Defendant
Tom Royston and Rosalind Burgin (instructed by Child Poverty Action Group) for
Ms Bui
Darryl Hutcheon (instructed by Central England Law Centre) for Ms Onakoyo
Edward Brown QC and Talia Zybutz (instructed by Government Legal Department)
for the Defendant
Hearing date: 20 May 2022
R (Bui) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions;
R (Onakoya) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2022] UKUT 189 (AAC)
1
DECISION
The claimants’ applications for judicial review are dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. These claims raise the important question of whether the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions is entitled to withhold payment of Universal Credit (“UC”)
from an individual who does not yet have a National Insurance Number (“NINo”)
until such time as a number has been allocated. The Secretary of State submits
that she is bound by statute to await the allocation of a NINo before making any
payment of UC, including a payment on account. The claimants submit that the
Secretary of State has misdirected herself in law: the effect of the relevant
statutory provisions is that the Secretary of State ought to have awarded (and
paid) UC at the point in the UC application process when they provided
documentary evidence that was sufficient for the Secretary of State to allocate a
NINo. In addition, Ms Bui raises questions of human rights and race
discrimination.
The key statutory provision
2. The provision of primary legislation which falls to be interpreted is section 1 of
the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (“the Administration Act”), which
provides (so far as relevant) as follows:
Entitlement to benefit dependent on claim
1.―(1) Except in such cases as may be prescribed, and subject to the
following provisions of this section and to section 3 below, no person shall be
entitled to any benefit unless, in addition to any other conditions relating to
that benefit being satisfied –
(a) he makes a claim for it in the manner, and within the time, prescribed in
relation to that benefit by regulations under this Part of this Act; or
(b) he is treated by virtue of such regulations as making a claim for it.
(1A) No person whose entitlement to any benefit depends on his making a
claim shall be entitled to the benefit unless subsection (1B) below is satisfied
in relation both to the person making the claim and to any other person in
respect of whom he is claiming benefit.
(1B) This subsection is satisfied in relation to a person if—
(a) the claim is accompanied by—
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
The King (on the application of Ngoc Hong Thi Bui) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
...THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER) Mrs Justice Farbey, Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley and Upper Tribunal Judge Church [2022] UKUT 189 (AAC) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Richard Drabble KC, Tom Royston and Rosalind Burgin (instructed by Child Poverty Action......