![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Mote v (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 1324 (14 December 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1324.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Civ 1324 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL
DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONERS
(Mr H. Levenson)
Case Nos CIS/1216/2005 and CH/1220/2005
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
![]() |
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
and
SIR PETER GIBSON
____________________
Ashley Neil ![]() | Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() (2) ![]() |
Respondents |
____________________
Mr Jason Coppel (instructed by The Solicitor to the Department for Work
and
Pensions)
for the Respondents
Hearing date : 13 November 2007
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Richards :
The issues
The decision not to adjourn the hearing of the appeals
"It is accepted that 'close liaison' would be expected between investigators in thecivil
and in the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that 'the overwhelming likelihood is that the police would lodge an application for forfeiture (and so effect the detention of the cash and the preservation of the status quo) but then seek an adjournment of the application until criminal proceedings (including any appeal) are concluded'. The advantages of this course are described in the note. They include the preservation of the status quo and ensuring that the defendant is 'not embarrassed into having to rehearse what may be part of his defence to the criminal allegation'. The defendant is unlikely to be in receipt of public funding in the
civil
proceedings. The potential saving of expense by adjourning
civil
proceedings is also mentioned."
"It is, however, important that care is taken to ensure that the fair trial of a defendant is not prejudiced by anything arising incivil
proceedings in the magistrates' court and steps should be taken accordingly. Liaison between police acting under Part 5 of the 2002 Act and the prosecuting authority is essential. In
view
of what happened in this case, the issue should be addressed by them."
The challenge to the substantive decision
"(o) On 29 November 2000, MrMote
entered into a credit agreement with Sainsbury's Bank Plc …. In support of his application for a loan, Mr
Mote
told the bank that:
i) he was a management consultant with 30 years length of service;
ii) he was employed by JC Commercial Management; and
iii) that he had a total monthly income of £4,000.00
(p) For a period which began on a date which I am unable to ascertain from the papers (but which was before 19 January 1996) until 23 May 2001 (when the account was closed) MrMote
held a postal account with the Douglas, Isle of Man branch of Barclays Bank Plc ('the Account'). …. Mr
Mote
did not at any time reveal either the existence of the Account or any of the transactions shown by [the]
statements
either to the
Secretary
of
State
for
Work
and
Pensions
or to Chichester District Council. The Account was a personal account ….
(q) The total amounts paid into the Account during the years from 1996 to 2000 were as follows:
Year | Amount |
1996 | £31,125.41 |
1997 | £15,751.33 |
1998 | £9,229.15 |
1999 | £2,648.56 |
2000 | £1,640.14 |
_________ | |
Total | £60,394.46 |
(r) On 23 May 2001, the Account was closed. He obtained a personal loan from Barclays to settle the overdraft and the monthly repayments on that loan account … were settled by a standing order from the Tanner Management account.
(s) Those payments into the Account were income in the hands of MrMote.
Given that Mr
Mote's
applicable amount was £101.05 in 1996 and would subsequently have increased only in line with annual uprating, that income was sufficient to disentitle Mr
Mote
from income support during the years 1996 to 1998.
(t) During the years 1999-2000 the income into the Account would – taken on its own – only have reduced MrMote's
entitlement to income support, not extinguished it. However, I also have to consider Mr
Mote's
income from JC Commercial Management of which he was a director. Mr
Mote
had
worked
as a management consultant for 30 years and by November 2000 was earning £4,000 per month from JC Commercial Management (see sub-paragraph (o) above). That sum was also sufficient on its own, even assuming that deductions had to be made for tax and national insurance, to disentitle Mr
Mote
to income support at that time. Given his long history as a management consultant, it is improbable that Mr
Mote
was earning substantially less than that sum during 1999. It is also improbable that the income from JC Commercial Management would have reduced in subsequent years. It is therefore more likely than not that the two sources of income taken together had that effect of disentitling him to income support from 1999 to the end of the overpayment period."
"MrMote's
own evidence, in the form of his application to Sainsbury's Bank Plc, shows that he was
working
for JC Commercial Management as a management consultant and that he drew [an] income from that employment which, as at November 2000 was £4,000 per month. There is also the evidence of the regular and substantial payments into Mr
Mote's
personal account with Barclays bank in the Isle of Man which, in the absence of any explanation to the contrary for Mr
Mote,
are more likely than not to be income. Those payments indicate a level of income which is wholly incompatible with entitlement to any sort of income-related benefit, including income support."
Conclusion
Sir Peter Gibson :
Lord Justice Lloyd :