Hooper v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

Hooper v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

The tribunal was not in error for failing to consider the Regulation 7(2)(c) issue because the superseded decision was not an 'incapacity benefit decision' under the regulations, and the issue was not raised by the appeal. The factsheet did not impose a clear and unambiguous mandatory requirement to notify the SSWP before starting work, so the appellant did not breach regulation 32(1), and the overpayment was not recoverable.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Hooper; Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Social Security Commissioner to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Incapacity Benefit, Overpayment Recovery, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Social Security Law Administrative Law Incapacity Benefit Overpayment Recovery Procedural Fairness Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Hooper

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Social Security Commissioner to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in law by not considering the Regulation 7(2)(c) issue regarding the effective date of supersession of incapacity benefit.
  2. 2 Whether the factsheet issued by the Secretary of State imposed a clear mandatory requirement to notify work under regulation 32(1) of the 1987 Regulations, justifying recovery of overpayment.
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's inquisitorial duty required it to consider issues not expressly raised by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal was not in error for failing to consider the Regulation 7(2)(c) issue because the superseded decision was not an 'incapacity benefit decision' under the regulations, and the issue was not raised by the appeal. The factsheet did not impose a clear and unambiguous mandatory requirement to notify the SSWP before starting work, so the appellant did not breach regulation 32(1), and the overpayment was not recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal against the supersession decision dismissed.
  • Appeal allowed on the overpayment issue; overpayment not recoverable.