DATE: 01 Dec 2009
The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal of Ms Novitskaya against the decision of Deputy Commissioner Ramsay. The case contains significant guidance on the meaning of a "claim for benefit" across all fields of social security law. In particular, the court held that a claim did not need to be in any specific form and did not need to specify the benefit being claimed in terms. Commenting on the longstanding authority of R (S) 1 / 63, Arden LJ said:
19. While this is a very helpful decision, excessive reliance should not be placed on the Commissioner’s statement that the intention to claim benefit should appear on the face of the document alleged to constitute a claim. Claims are no different from any other document requiring interpretation and it is now well-established that the meaning of documents should be ascertained in the light of the relevant surrounding facts (Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896). Thus, it may be possible to infer that a claim is being made from some other document. The Commissioner refers to the possibility that an accompanying letter might be enough to make it clear that another document was making a claim. In my view this is certainly legally possible.
Tim Buley acted for the SSWP, who intervened in support of the successful Appellant, Ms Novistkaya.
