Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2015 UKUT 479 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CF 5472 2014
Appellant:	JH
Respondent:	Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (CHB)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge H. Levenson
Date Of Decision:	03/09/2015
Date Added:	15/09/2015
Main Category:	Human rights law
Main Subcategory:	article 14 (non-discrimination)
Secondary Category:	Benefits for children
Secondary Subcategory:	child benefit
Notes:	Reported as [2016] AACR 15. Human rights law – non-discrimination – disapplication of a regulation for discrimination between different classes of disabled young persons Child benefit – young person with special educational needs – home learning programme starts after age 16 The claimant’s son was diagnosed as autistic and, following a statement of special educational needs, he attended a special needs school between the ages of 13 and 18. After he turned 18 the local authority agreed to pay for a home learning programme for him. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) decided that this was not approved education for the purposes of entitlement to child benefit (CHB) under regulation 3(3) of the Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 and therefore that the claimant was no longer entitled to CHB from September 2013. The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) upheld that decision. The claimant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), where all parties were agreed that the F-tT had erred in law. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. regulation 3(3) of the 2006 Regulations removed entitlement to child benefit in respect of a young person (between 16 to 19 years old) receiving approved education other than at a school or college, unless that education began before the age of 16. Neither HMRC nor the F-tT (nor the Upper Tribunal) had a discretion to decide otherwise (paragraph 10); 2. the application of regulation 3(3) to the son in the present case amounted to discrimination against the claimant, contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 1 Protocol 1 read with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that there was a relevant difference in treatment which could not be justified and was not proportionate: see also VL v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (IS) [2011] UKUT 227 (AAC); [2012] AACR 10. Therefore regulation 3(3) was disapplied in the instant case (paragraphs 12 and 15). The judge set aside the decision of the F-tT and substituted his own decision confirming the claimant’s entitlement to CHB from September 2013.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2016] AACR 15ws.doc