• In the case of R v Social Security Secretary ex p Child Poverty Action Group 1990 2 QB 540, it was found that advocacy groups have sufficient interest to apply for judicial review in behalf of social security claimants and that local council have sufficient interest to apply on behalf of their residents in relation to social security claims.
  • The Secretary of State had not misinterpreted their duties.

Facts of the Case

  • The child Poverty Action Group sought judicial review of paragraphs 13003 of the “S Manual” (administrative guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the administration of the supplementary benefit scheme; and paragraph 13052 of the S manual and the view of the law relating to the processing of claims for supplementary benefit held by Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer and expressed in a letter dated 17th July 1987.
  • The applicants sought the following relief, namely, (1) a declaration that paragraph 13002 of the S Manual was wrong in law to the extent that it advised that the duty to refer a claim to an adjudication officer did not arise until the claimant had produced sufficient information for a determination to be made on his claim.
  •  A declaration that paragraph 13052 of the S Manual was wrong in law to the extent that it suggested that an adjudication officer was entitled to have regard to matters external to the claim in deciding whether it was practicable to dispose of a claim within 14 days; and (3) a declaration that the duties imposed by sections 98 and 99 of the Social Security Act 1975 involved, on the true construction of the relevant provisions, the following propositions (i) the duty to refer a claim to an adjudication officer arose as soon as a claim for benefit was received by the Secretary of State, (ii) that duty was to refer the claim for determination in accordance with section 99 and involved referring the claim to an adjudication officer who was in a position to take the claim into consideration, and (iii) that the adjudication officer to whom a case had been validly submitted must dispose of it within 14 days if practicable, and that in deciding what was practicable regard could be had to matters internal to the claim but not to extrinsic factors. On 5 February 1988 the judge dismissed the application. 
  • The applicants appealed.

Issues in R v Social Security Secretary ex p Child Poverty Action Group 1990 2 QB 540

  • Whether the applicants had standing to appeal and whether the Secretary of State had misinterpreted their duties.

Held by Court of Appeal

  • A declaration should not be granted.

Woolf LJ

  • Dismissing the appeal, that the Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer had not misinterpreted their duties under sections 98 and 99 of the Act of 1975 and that the application for judicial review should be dismissed.
  • “The fact that the court is not required to give declaratory relief also means that it is unnecessary for the court to deal with the question of the applicants’ locus standi to make their application for judicial review. In the court below Schiemann J.’s judgment records that, because of the importance of the issue, the Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer did not dispute the issue of locus standi while making it plain that they reserved their right to argue the point of locus standi in D analogous cases in the future. Before this court the Secretary of State and the Chief Adjudication Officer wished to adopt the same position but indicated that, if this court required argument, they were prepared to advance the argument. Mr. Beloff indicated that he would have relied on the decision in the Scottish case In re Scottish Old People’s Welfare Council, 1987 S.L.T. 179. This court did not require Mr. Beloff to advance the argument which he wished to reserve. However, we make it clear that in our view the question of locus standi goes to jurisdiction of the court and therefore the approach adopted by the department in this case, while understandable, is not appropriate. The parties are not entitled to confer jurisdiction, which the court does not have, on the court by consent and, if this court had been minded to grant declaratory relief, would have had to advance any arguments which were available F to them or to accept the consequences of not doing so. Having regard to the outcome of this appeal we can content ourselves by indicating that, on the evidence but without the advantage of argument, we have no doubt that it was in order for this court and Schiemann J. to treat the application for judicial review as being one which the court had jurisdiction to hear. We dismiss this appeal” p556C-G

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.