Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2009 UKUT 122 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CJSA 526 2009
Appellant:	KS
Respondent:	SSWP
Judge/Commissioner:	Other Judges / Other Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	02/07/2009
Date Added:	27/07/2009
Main Category:	Capital
Main Subcategory:	Valuation
Secondary Category:	Capital
Secondary Subcategory:	Notional Capital: deprivation
Notes:	Reported as [2010] AACR 3 Capital – valuation of assets after bankruptcy order made – possibility of finding of deprivation based on claimant’s conduct during bankruptcy process The claimant was found by a decision-maker, and on appeal by the appeal tribunal, to have capital in excess of £16,000 and therefore to be ineligible for income-based jobseeker’s allowance on his claim made in June 2007. The tribunal relied entirely on its findings as to capital which it found the claimant had acquired in the years up to 2005 and ignored the fact that he had been adjudged bankrupt in October 2006 and that a trustee in bankruptcy had been appointed in January 2007, although evidence of those facts had been submitted to it. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner, whose functions by the time of the decision had been transferred to the Upper Tribunal. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. once a bankruptcy order is in force, a claimant’s assets should either be treated as not his capital at all or be valued at nil for benefit purposes as he is prohibited from dealing with them without the consent of the court and CIS/634/1992 was wrong in holding otherwise (CJSA/1556/2007 applied) (paragraphs 10 to 13); 2. it followed that a claimant could not deprive himself of capital while a bankruptcy order is in force. However, a claimant might deprive himself of capital if he submits to a bankruptcy order or delays its annulment for the purpose of securing entitlement (paragraphs 16 to 18); 3. in the absence of satisfactory evidence of the amount for which the claimant was made bankrupt or of the amount of his debts, the tribunal had erred in making no satisfactory findings as to his assets or proper investigation as to whether he might have deprived himself of assets or concealed them prior to the bankruptcy (paragraph 19). The Judge remitted the case to a new tribunal to investigate the bankruptcy with a suggestion that it might wish to use its powers to obtain oral or written evidence from the trustee in bankruptcy or to require the claimant to give evidence under oath.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2010] AACR 3 bv.doc