Howker v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 1623 (08 November 2002)

Howker v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 1623 (08 November 2002)

Regulation 27 was invalid because the Secretary of State, through departmental officials, provided materially misleading information to the Social Security Advisory Committee, resulting in the Committee's agreement to dispense with a formal reference. This breached the statutory duty under s.170(4) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and deprived Parliament of the Committee's advice, a mandatory procedural requirement. The procedural irregularity was material and rendered the regulation ultra vires.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1623
Parties
Appellant: Howker; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Second Respondent: Social Security Advisory Committee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Social Security Commissioner / Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Validity of Delegated Legislation, Procedural Requirements for Regulation Making, Consultation With Advisory Committees, Ultra Vires Challenge, Social Security Benefits
Administrative Law Social Security Law Validity of Delegated Legislation Procedural Requirements for Regulation Making Consultation With Advisory Committees Ultra Vires Challenge Social Security Benefits

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howker

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

First Respondent

Social Security Advisory Committee

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Social Security Commissioner / Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation 27 of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work and General Amendments) Regulations 1996 was invalid due to procedural irregularity
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State complied with statutory requirements for consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee
  3. 3 Whether misleading information provided to the Committee vitiated the Committee's agreement to dispense with a formal reference

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 27 was invalid because the Secretary of State, through departmental officials, provided materially misleading information to the Social Security Advisory Committee, resulting in the Committee's agreement to dispense with a formal reference. This breached the statutory duty under s.170(4) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and deprived Parliament of the Committee's advice, a mandatory procedural requirement. The procedural irregularity was material and rendered the regulation ultra vires.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Social Security Commissioner dated 4 May 2001 set aside
  • Decision of the Sutton Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 6 June 1997 set aside