Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(G)2/06
File Number:	CG 2973 2004
Appellant:	Levy v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] EWCA Civ 890
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge C. Turnbull
Date Of Decision:	24/05/2006
Date Added:	10/02/2005
Main Category:	Claims and payments
Main Subcategory:	period of claim
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Claim – date of claim where receipt delayed by mishandling of Royal Mail – vires of regulation 6(1) Claims and Payments Regulations – application of section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 The claimant was widowed on 23 May 2000 and on 4 July 2000 posted a claim form for widow’s benefit, which did not arrive at the relevant office of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). She was ill and did not pursue the matter until October 2001, when she sent a further claim, which was received by the DWP on 29 October. The Secretary of State awarded benefit from 29 July 2001, relying on Regulation 6(1)(a) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, which provides that a claim is made on the date on which it is received in an appropriate office. The claimant appealed to a tribunal, which upheld the Secretary of State’s decision. On her further appeal, the Commissioner held that, because her original claim form had probably been mishandled by the Royal Mail, it had not been received by an appropriate office of the DWP and the claim was therefore not made until the second claim form was received. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The issue was whether the claim was made or treated as having been made by her original July 2000 claim or by her later claim. The claimant argued that regulation 6(1)(a) was ultra vires section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (the 1992 Act). The claimant further argued that section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applied to regulation 6(1). That provides that, unless a contrary intention appears, a document required to be served by post will be deemed to have been received in the ordinary course of posting if properly addressed and posted. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. regulation 6(1) was not ultra vires the 1992 Act because, whether or not it was authorised by section 5(1) of that Act, the plain and unequivocal language of section 189(5) was wide enough to permit a regulation such as regulation 6(1) (paragraphs 17 to 26, 40, 42 to 44); 2. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 deals with the serving of documents and the date of deemed service and has no application to regulation 6(1), which does not have any provision for dealing with the date of service of a claim and is only concerned with the date a claim is made. Even if section 7 had applied, its application would have been excluded because of the clear contrary intention in the wording of regulation 6(1) defining the date of claim as the date it was received (paragraphs 29 to 32, 46).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(G) 2-06 bv.doc