Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number: R(S)6/94
File Number: CS 252 1991
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner: Mr M. J. Goodman
Date Of Decision: 26/07/1993
Date Added: 01/07/2002
Main Category: Incapacity benefits
Main Subcategory: increase for adult dependant
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes: Increase for dependant wife - wife involved in one-day strikes - whether transitional protection lost The claimant had received invalidity benefit including an increase for his wife continuously since 19 April 1982. He was therefore entitled to the benefit of the transitional protection applying to the “tapered” earnings rule for determining the amount of increase payable (regulation 8(6) of the Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Regulations 1977). On 4 July 1989 his wife’s trade union called a strike and she was involved in one day strikes on 4 July 1989, 11 July 1989, 18 July 1989 and 20 July 1989. This came to light when the claimant notified his local office in October 1989 of an increase in his wife’s wages. As a result the adjudication officer reviewed the award of an increase of invalidity benefit and decided that there was no entitlement to the increase for 4 July 1989, 11 July 1989, 18 July 1989 and 20 July 1989. As a break in entitlement causes the claimant to lose the right to have the “tapered” earnings rule applied, the adjudication officer also decided that no increase was payable from and including 5 July 1989 due to the fact that the earnings of the claimant’s wife in the previous week exceeded the limit permitted by the “all or nothing” earnings rule (regulation 8(2) of the Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Regulations 1977) and had continued to do so. The revised decision resulted in an overpayment of benefit from 4 July 1989 to 3 March 1990. The adjudication officer determined that the overpayment from 4 July 1989 to 22 October 1989 was recoverable from the claimant on the grounds that he failed to disclose a material fact. The claimant appealed. Held that: 1. increase of benefit under section 45 of the Social Security Act 1975 (now section 83 of the Contributions and Benefits Act 1992) is a daily benefit; 2. under section 49A(ii) of the Social Security Act 1975 (now section 91 of the Contributions and Benefits Act 1992) there is no title to an increase for an adult dependant where that dependant is involved in a trade dispute and either has been or would have been disqualified for unemployment benefit were they otherwise entitled. The use of the word otherwise is to cover all those dependants participating in trade disputes whatever their actual position as to entitlement to unemployment benefit.
Decision(s) to Download: S6_94.doc S6_94.doc