[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Bennett, R (on the application of) v Social Security Commissioner [2001] EWCA Civ 50 (23 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/50.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 50

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Maurice Kay)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 23rd January 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE MAY: This is a reinstated application for permission to apply for judicial review or, alternatively, for permission to appeal. It arises in the first instance out of a decision of Mr Justice Maurice Kay on 25th June 1999.
2. Mr Bennett has not appeared to support his application this morning. He was given notice of today's hearing by letter from the office dated 5th January 2001. The office has received, as I understand it, no explanation for his non-attendance, nor is there any application for an adjournment. I shall therefore proceed to determine the matter.
3. In June 1991 or thereabouts Mr Bennett (who was then, I think, aged about 55) was made redundant. Since then he has been unable to obtain employment. On 14th June 1991 he began to receive income support. Early in 1995 he reached an age when he was entitled to receive payment from an occupational pension scheme. He did so. In consequence, an adjudication officer decided that £12.81 per week should be deducted from his income support on the basis that the payment from the occupational pension scheme was income. On 17th July 1995 a Department of Social Security Tribunal made a final decision to that effect. On 23rd February 1996 Mr Bennett was refused permission to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner. There were further applications until, on 22nd May 1997, the Commissioner declined to set aside the decision of 23rd February 1996.
4. Mr Bennett applied for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision on 8th August 1997. Mr Justice Latham refused him permission to apply on 11th March 1999.
5. At a hearing on 25th June 1999 Mr Justice Maurice Kay refused him permission to apply. It appears that Mr Bennett had been using the income from the occupational pension scheme to pay premiums on a life insurance policy. Mr Justice Maurice Kay noted that the sequence of events had brought great unhappiness to Mr Bennett and that he undoubtedly felt a great sense of grievance about what had happened. However, Mr Justice Maurice Kay agreed with what Mr Justice Latham had said when he refused permission on the papers: that is, that the decision about which Mr Bennett complained was in accordance with the law and the relevant legislation. His complaints about the effect of the regulations, which were political arguments, did not raise any issues which the court could resolve.
6. Mr Bennett's application for permission to appeal to this court came before Lord Justice Schiemann on 4th February 2000. Mr Bennett did not attend that hearing, but he had informed the court that he did not want an adjournment and wished the court to deal with the matter if it could. Lord Justice Schiemann proceeded to do so. He concluded that there was nothing legally wrong with what the Commissioner had done and he refused the application.
7. Mr Bennett was in correspondence with the Civil Appeals Office during the summer of 2000. He had brought forward additional considerations. There is, in form, before the court an application for judicial review dated 19th July 2000. This has been treated as a reinstatement of the previous application, but it really raises new material. Mr Bennett says that he has been dispossessed of his home in Reading. He says that the Secretary of State exceeded his powers by precluding him from earning a living. The burden of this part of his application is that people of his age should be enabled to earn a living until they reach the age of 65 and that he has been prevented from doing so. Mr Bennett has produced a skeleton argument which emphasises these points and which concludes by saying that:

"It is the laws that allowed this to happen that need urgent revision."

8. Attached to the skeleton argument is a two-page typed document in which Mr Bennett gives details of the mortgage possession proceedings brought by the building society with whom he appears to have mortgaged his home for £65,000. The proceedings in the Reading County Court appear to date back to 1995. It seems that in April 2000 there was a hearing at which it looks as if the court made an order for possession and sale. Mr Bennett says that at the time he was attempting to sell his house for £160,000. He has complaints against the building society and the court and continues to complain that all this has been brought about because he has not been enabled to work since 1991. He ends by claiming damages for the events surrounding the case in the Reading County Court.
9. It is evident that the new material has little or no bearing on the original judicial review application. I can see no basis for giving permission to enable that application, which has been turned down successively by Mr Justice Latham, Mr Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Schiemann, to proceed. The material relating to the mortgage possession proceedings in the Reading County Court is not formulated in any way suitable for a judicial review application. It has no bearing on the original judicial review application. Any new application based on those facts could not be started in the Court of Appeal. It would have to start in the Administrative Court. It is a matter for Mr Bennett whether he wishes to try to do that. I would only say that I would not want him to think that anything I have said today should be seen as an encouragement to him to do so.
10. For today's purposes, the application is refused.
Order: application dismissed.