London Borough Of Haringey v Awaritefe [1999] EWCA Civ 1491 (26 May 1999)

London Borough Of Haringey v Awaritefe [1999] EWCA Civ 1491 (26 May 1999)

The breaches of Schedule 6 notification requirements were not fatal as there was substantial compliance and no substantive prejudice to the respondent; the appellant was entitled to recover the overpayment as determined by the District Judge.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 1491
Parties
Claimant/appellant: London Borough of Haringey; Defendant/respondent: Mrs A Awaritefe; Intervener: Secretary of State for Social Security
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From West London County Court to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Judge's order restored.
Legal Topics
Housing Benefit Overpayment, Statutory Compliance, Procedural Irregularity, Substantial Compliance, County Court Jurisdiction
Administrative Law Housing Law Civil Procedure Housing Benefit Overpayment Statutory Compliance Procedural Irregularity Substantial Compliance County Court Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Haringey

Claimant/appellant

Mrs A Awaritefe

Defendant/respondent

Secretary of State for Social Security

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From West London County Court to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breaches of procedural requirements in Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 Schedule 6 invalidate recovery of overpayments
  2. 2 Whether substantial compliance with notification requirements suffices for enforcement
  3. 3 Whether factual issues can be re-litigated in County Court absent Review Board determination

Ratio Decidendi

The breaches of Schedule 6 notification requirements were not fatal as there was substantial compliance and no substantive prejudice to the respondent; the appellant was entitled to recover the overpayment as determined by the District Judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Judge's order restored.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay appellant £1,015.66 as recoverable overpayment.
  • Respondent to pay costs of £126 assessed by District Judge.