[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Spiropoulos, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2008] EWHC 163 (Admin) (17 January 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/163.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 163 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		17 January 2008

1. MR JUSTICE BURTON: This is an application by Mr Spiropoulos, pursuant to leave granted by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton on one ground only, against the defendant the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It arises out of a refusal to allow an appeal to go forward in respect of a decision as to whether he was entitled to jobseeker's allowance in respect of the period April to May 2005, made by a decision of 21 April 2005.
2. After the grant of permission by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton the defendant, very sensibly, concluded that it would review the Jobcentre's earlier decision and, after all, concluded that the claimant was not disentitled to jobseeker's allowance. Indeed the claimant continued to be entitled to - and to receive – jobseeker's allowance from time to time in respect of subsequent periods until June 2007. The only period in respect of which there ever was a disallowance was this period of two weeks in April/May 2005, amounting to a total of £120 approximately.
3. In respect of that challenge the defendant decided to back off, to reconsider its decision and to withdraw its conclusion that the claimant was not entitled. In those circumstances it is plain that the claimant's claim became wholly unnecessary to be pursued because he had achieved that which he came for, and more. He came for an appeal. He not only got the right to appeal but he had the appeal allowed by virtue of the fact that the original decision was reviewed.
4. It is unfortunate that in the early correspondence notifying him of the fact that there had been a review of the decision an impression was given - and in my judgment a reasonable impression - not simply to this claimant, who tells me that he has difficulty in reading, but to any reader, that the position was, to say the very least, unclear as to whether what had happened was that the defendant had withdrawn its refusal of an appeal and was now allowing an appeal to go forward or, as in fact was the case, was withdrawing its decision to refuse an appeal and reviewing and withdrawing that original decision, thus rendering an appeal unnecessary.
5. Mr Spiropoulos has told me that he telephoned the appeal tribunal and found that - contrary to what he had been led to believe from the correspondence, namely that his appeal was being allowed to go forward - no such appeal was going forward. Consequently he was left in uncertainty. Whereas originally he was prepared to - and did - communicate with the Administrative Court to say that he wanted to withdraw his claim, he then withdrew that withdrawal and continued to proceed with it. That is all well and good up to and including July 2007, at which time this case had still not been brought on for hearing.
6. At that stage, by letter of 11 July 2007, for the first time so far as I know, a very clear letter was sent by Mrs Milavic from the office of the solicitor for the defendant. Whereas all previous letters had unwisely referred to an appeal being allowed to go forward, this letter made it utterly clear, both in the text of the letter and by enclosing the review decision itself of 24 August 2006, that the new decision was that the claimant was not disentitled to jobseeker's allowance in respect of the relevant period.
7. The claimant has denied at any time receiving a copy of the review decision. But I am entirely satisfied that that is a mistake on his part, and that he did receive the decision as an enclosure to the letter of 11 July 2007, if not before, because he replied to the letter of 11 July 2007 in a letter of 20 July 2007. That letter reads as follows, addressed to Mrs Milavic:

"The basis on which I intend to pursue the claim is that I have received no compensation from your client so far. Changing the original DWP decision in my favour is not enough. The money had to be borrowed when it was due years ago. Additional costs have been incurred since. Full compensation will have to be paid."

There was no reply to that letter.

8. What had occurred prior to that was that notification had been given on 24 November 2006 by Jobcentre Plus direct to the claimant, saying:

"Further to your appeal regarding the disallowance of benefit for 23 February 2005, it has been decided favourably to allow benefit for this period. An appeal hearing is therefore not applicable. I will instruct the Payments Section to pay any benefit owing for that date when you confirm what post office you would like to use to cash it as we can only pay this by Giro cheque. I enclose a prepaid envelope for your reply."

The claimant denies that he received that letter. Although I must inevitably be somewhat sceptical about such a statement given his denial about receiving the 11 July 2007 letter, which I have rejected because he replied to it, what can be said is that that position, namely 'we will pay you the money if only you tell us what post office to pay it in', is a somewhat strange position, given that they were paying and continued to pay from time to time the regular weekly jobseeker's allowance. I can see no reason why they should not have sent the £120 in the same way, without needing to ask a question, never mind not following up that letter when they did not receive a reply.

9. Against that background the unanswered letter of 20 July 2007 is, I accept from what Mr Buley said to me, somewhat unclear. It could be read as a simple statement "I have not received a penny from your client and, what is more, I have other costs that I want met, such as interest for late payment." It could be read simply as a letter relating only to the aspect of delay. However it is read, the fact is that in July 2007, and now in January 2008, it would have been a matter of moments for someone to check by reference to a computer whether the money which had been, since August 2006, admitted to be due to the claimant had been paid. If it was paid, a letter to say "Thank you for your letter of 20 July 2007; you have received in full all you are entitled to: as for your request for entitlement to interest, that would not amount to more than £3.50 in respect of the period involved and, in any event, we have no jurisdiction to pay you that sum, nor would the court." There was however no reply.
10. What happened was that Mr Spiropoulos - still it seems not having received £120, still it seems, unreasonably in my judgment, believing that he had a claim still to bring - has come to court today and the defendant has attended by counsel, incurring costs of solicitor and counsel in respect of today's hearing of getting on for £1,000.
11. Today I must, and I do, dismiss the claimant's claim as academic, in the sense that the only claim that was ever sought was a claim for a right to pursue an appeal. That was achieved by the fact that the decision which it has been sought to appeal has been reviewed, and a decision favourable to him substituted. His claim therefore must be dismissed.
12. The claim that is made against him is for the costs incurred by virtue of his unreasonable pursuance of that hopeless claim since August 2006 or, at any rate, since July 2007 or, at any rate, in the last week or so when the costs of attending today came to be incurred.
13. I must begin by saying that if the claimant incurred any costs of bringing these proceedings, so far as it relates to the one claim on which he had permission, he might have been entitled to have sought costs against the defendant, at least up to August 2006, to include the obtaining of permission. At all times however he was acting without representation and therefore such costs are likely to have been minimal. The defendant itself does not seek any of its costs of defending the claim for appearing before Mr Justice Stanley Burnton. But that emphasises that at least until August 2006 and, if the claimant is right, at least until July 2007, which is the first time I can be satisfied that he definitely received the decision of August 2006, he might be entitled to costs or at any rate not have to pay the defendant's costs. The question is whether he has unreasonably attended today to such an extent that he ought to pay the £1,000 costs, or something towards it, that is now claimed by the defendant.
14. I am satisfied that this is not a case where I would order costs against him. I have not been at all impressed by the way in which the claimant has put forward his case today. I have rejected, as I have indicated, his assertion that he did not receive the decision of August 2006. However the one point that is clear at all times is that he has felt strongly about the fact that he has not received the money. I am in no position to order that money to be paid, because that is not my jurisdiction. If the money had been paid and/or a letter to say so had been sent, then it would have been beyond doubt that it was unreasonable for the claimant to attend today. As it is, there has been no attempt even up to today to check that the money has been paid and no response to the letter of 20 July 2007.
15. In those circumstances, while I regret that public money has been wasted by virtue of attending today, there would have been a perfectly simple way in which to avoid the hearing today at all or, if Mr Buley could not have been prevented from coming, then an unstoppable and unanswerable claim for the order for costs which I am not making.
16. MR JUSTICE BURTON: You are asking for a transcript.
17. MR BULEY: I think we probably are. It may be relevant in future cases.
18. MR JUSTICE BURTON: Clearly what ought to be done is to double check whether the payment has been made to the claimant in respect of that period. If it has not been made, it should be; if it has been, a letter to him telling him so should be sent.
19. MR BULEY: If it has been paid, we will tell him. If it has not been paid, we will either pay it or tell him any steps he needs to take.
20. MR JUSTICE BURTON: I hope it will be the former because a payment by cheque or, alternatively, a payment through the same method - - Mr Spiropoulos, can I inquire why you say you have not received any jobseeker's allowance since last June?
21. THE APPLICANT: The particular two weeks. I have received other payments.
22. MR JUSTICE BURTON: You have received other payment. You stopped being entitled to jobseeker's allowance last June, you told us.
23. THE APPLICANT: Yes.
24. MR JUSTICE BURTON: If they have not made the payment, if they make the payment now through the same mechanism as they paid up to June it would still work.
25. THE APPLICANT: Yes. They just send you a cheque by mail; that is all it takes.
26. MR JUSTICE BURTON: You have to pay it into a certain bank account or a certain post office account; that still exists.
27. THE APPLICANT: Yes.
28. MR JUSTICE BURTON: Your arrangements are the same?
29. THE APPLICANT: Yes.
---