Ryan Taylor and The Department for Communities and the Department for Work and Pensions
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICA 8 |
| Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICA 8
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11765
ICOS No:
Delivered: 18/02/2022
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
(QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION)
_________
RYAN TAYLOR
Appellant:
-and-
THE DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND THE DEPARTMENT FOR
WORK AND PENSIONS
Respondents:
_________
Representation
Appellant: Mr Hugh Southey QC and Mr Steven J McQuitty (of counsel) instructed
by Kristina Murray Solicitors
Respondents: Mr Tony McGleenan QC and Mr Aidan Sands (of counsel) instructed by
the Departmental Solicitors Office and the Crown Solicitor’s Office
_________
Before: McCloskey LJ, Maguire LJ and Horner J
_________
McCloskey LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal in judicial review proceedings. The parties are Ryan Taylor
(“the appellant”) on the one hand and the Department for Communities (“DFC”) and
the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”), collectively “the respondents”, on
the other. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (“NIHE”) has been recognised
as having the status of interested party and, in response to the court’s direction,
confirmed, very properly, that it did not seek to participate actively in this appeal.
[2] This case concerns the taxpayers’ funded benefit known as Housing Benefit
(“HB”). HB is administered by NIHE on behalf of the Department for Communities.
In a nutshell, HB is designed to assist those on low income living in rented
accommodation who satisfy the statutory qualifying requirements by paying their
rent, rates and service charges. The appellant is said to be a member of this class.
[3] The appellant appeals against the order of Deputy High Court Judge
Friedman, consequential upon his judgment delivered on 18 December 2000 – [2020]
NIQB 78 - dismissing the application for judicial review. By this judgment the court
determines the respondents’ application for an order striking out the appeal on the
grounds that the appellant has failed to discharge his duty of candour to the court
both at first instance and on appeal; has failed to comply with the requirements of
Order 53, Rules 5 and 6 and Order 41 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature; has not
established that he is a victim within the compass of section 7(1) of the Human
Rights Act 1998 (“HRA 1998”); and is pursuing an appeal which constitutes a misuse
of the process of the court. There is a further contention that in the event of the
appeal proceeding there is no basis upon which the court could, in the exercise of its
discretion, provide the appellant with a remedy of practical benefit to him.
The Impugned Statutory Provisions
[4] We gratefully adopt the judge’s outline of the governing statutory framework,
which is contained in the Housing Benefits Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, as
amended by the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations
(Northern Ireland) 2013 (67/2013) (‘the 2006 Regulations’) :
“[37] Regulation 7(13) of the 2006 Regulations, provides that, subject to
regulation 7(17), a person shall be treated as occupying a dwelling house as
his home while he is temporarily absent within Northern Ireland if (a) he
intends to return to occupy the dwelling as his home; (b) the part of the
dwelling normally occupied by him has not been let or sublet; and (c) the
period of absence is unlikely to exceed 13 weeks. This is the period of deemed
occupation for all people to whom it applies, irrespective of the reason for their
absence from their home.
[38] Regulation 7(17) provides that a person to whom regulation 7(16)
applies shall still be treated as occupying his home during any period of
temporary absence not exceeding 52 weeks beginning from the first day of that
absence. The list of ten exceptions in Regulation 7(16) contains
limited categories of persons who are absent for special reasons, which includes
other than remand prisoners, the hospitalised, those caring for them, those
seeking refuge from domestic violence, and various forms of study and
training: see Reg. 16 (c) (ii) - (x).
[39] In its original form the list included (at Reg. 16(c)(i)), persons
“detained in custody on remand pending trial or, as a condition of bail,
required to reside in a dwelling, other than the dwelling he occupies as his
home or, detained pending sentence upon conviction”.
[40] The ten exceptions are essentially, involuntary; and nine of them are
for benign reasons of absence that would be contrary to the public interest not
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Suresh Deman and Queen's University Belfast
...what was stated in the recent decision of this court in Taylor v Department for Communities and the Department for Work and Pensions [2022 NICA 8 at para [23]: “It is convenient to summarise the main duties of every claimant in every form of civil litigation (and, indeed, in other litigatio......