Secretary of State for Social Security and Another v Tunnicliffe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1991 |
| Date | 13 December 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Mustill, Lord Justice Staughton and Lord Justice McCowan
Social security - overpaid benefit - retrospective recovery
Provisions for the recovery of amounts of overpaid social security benefits contained in section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986, that came into force on April 6, 1987, could be operated retrospectively.
Where a determination of overpayment to a widowed mother was made after April 6, 1987, in respect of benefits she had wrongly received before that date, she was to make repayment in accordance with section 53 and not under the provisions of section 119 of the Social Security Act 1975 that were in force until that date.
The Court of Appeal so held in reserved judgments allowing an appeal by the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Chief Adjudication Officer from the decision of a social security commissioner, Mr M H Johnson, in favour of the respondent, Mrs Sandra Tunnicliffe. He had held there was no right of recovery under section 53.
Section 53 of the 1986 Act was brought into force as from April 6, 1987, and provided: "(1) Where it is determined that whether fraudulently or otherwise, any person has misrepresented, or failed to disclose, any material fact and in consequence of the misrepresentation or failure (a) a payment has been made in respect of a benefit … the secretary of state shall be entitled to recover the amount of any payment which he would not have made … but for the misrepresentation or failure to disclose."
Mr Michael Beloff, QC and Mr J R McManus for the secretary of state; Mr Stephen Sedley, QC and Mr Mark Rowland for Mrs Tunnicliffe.
LORD JUSTICE MUSTILL said that Mrs Tunnicliffe, a widowed mother, received an allowance under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1975. On July 28, 1986 she ceased to fulfil the requirements for the allowance but continued to draw it. It was not suggested that in so doing she had been acting dishonestly.
In August 1987 an adjudication officer decided that the allowance had been wrongly paid to her for the period between July 22, 1986, and March 30, 1987 and that the secretary of state was entitled to recover from her the amount of the overpayment. He purported to make that determination under section 53.
Mrs Tunnicliffe appealed to a social security appeal tribunal who upheld the adjudication officer's decision. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plewa (Executrix of the estate of Jozef Plewa, deceased) v Chief Adjudication Officer
...applied the decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Social Security v TunnicliffeTLRUNK(The Times January 8, 1991; (1991) 2 All ER 712), the facts of which were indistinguishable from those relating to Mr Plewa, where it had been held that the adjudication officer and the ......
- Jack-in-Pile (M) Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (and Another Appeal)
-
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2)
...guide. As always, therefore, the underlying rationale should be sought. This was well identified by Staughton LJ in Secretary of State for Social Security v Tunnicliffe [1991] 2 All ER 712, 724: 'the true principle is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to alter the law applic......
-
The King (on the application of Coal Action Network) v Welsh Ministers
...undue or mechanistic reliance on generalised presumptions he applied the following statement from Staughton LJ in Secretary of State for Social Security v Tunnicliffe [1991] 2 All ER 712, 724: ‘In my judgment the true principle is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to alter t......
-
OF RETROSPECTIVE CRIMINAL LAWS AND PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING: REVISITING PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN MENG KHIN & 24 ORS
...on appeal from Malaysia), where the Privy Council “overruled” the decision of Secretary of State for Social Security v Tunniciffe[1991] 2 All ER 712 (English Court of Appeal) and held that the statutory provision in question was prospective, and not retrospective, in operation. The Privy Co......