Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v NC
[2023] UKUT 124 (AAC)
JC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA)
8 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 13 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A man's benefits were stopped because he was in jail. But he was in jail for a civil matter, not a crime. The court decided this was wrong and reinstated his benefits.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (JC) was entitled to Income Related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA(IR)) from 20 November 2019.
- •Appellant was arrested on 3 September 2020 on a civil warrant for contempt of court.
- •Appellant's ESA(IR) was ended on 4 September 2020 by the Respondent.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the Appellant's appeal on 18 August 2022.
- •The FTT applied Regulation 69(2) of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 to define 'prisoner'.
- •The Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing that the FTT erred in law.
- •Both the Appellant and Respondent agreed that the FTT made a material error of law.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'prisoner' under Regulation 69(2) of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 should be interpreted consistently with Section 113(1)(b) of the Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act.
Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008, Regulation 69(2); Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act, Section 113(1)(b)
Imprisonment for civil contempt of court does not disqualify a person from receiving social security benefits under Section 113(1)(b) of the Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act.
R(S) 8/79
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The FTT erred in law by applying Regulation 69(2) incorrectly and failing to consider the relevant case law (R(S) 8/79). The Appellant's imprisonment was for civil contempt, not a criminal offence, therefore his ESA(IR) should not have been stopped.
The FTT's decision was set aside.
Material error of law in the FTT's interpretation of 'prisoner'.
The Upper Tribunal remade the decision in the Appellant's favour.
No further factual or evidential issues needed consideration; awarding the benefit avoids further delay.