the times | Monday August 3 2020 1GM 47
Register
In order to claim a carer’s allowance
in the United Kingdom a claimant
had to show a genuine and sufficient
link to the UK social security system.
If a claimant resided in a European
Union member state and did not
work in the UK, the fact that he was
entitled to a UK pension did not enti-
tle him to a carer’s allowance. Nor did
the fact that the person cared for was
entitled to a UK attendance allow-
ance mean that the connected carer’s
allowance should also be granted by
the UK.
The Court of Appeal so held when
giving reasons for dismissing the
appeal of the claimant, George
Konevod, from the decision of the
Upper Tribunal (Administrative
Appeals Chamber) (Upper Tribunal
Judge Jacobs) ([2019] UKUT 87
(AAC)) which dismissed the appeal of
the claimant from the decision of the
First-tier Tribunal upholding the
refusal by the defendant, the Secre-
tary of State for Work and Pensions,
to grant the claimant’s application for
carer’s allowance.
Mr Tim Buley, QC and Ms Elean-
or Mitchell (appearing pro bono) for
the claimant; Ms Julia Smyth for the
secretary of state.
Sir Stephen Richards said that the
appeal concerned the application of
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the
co-ordination of social security
systems to a claim for a UK non-con-
tributory sickness benefit in circum-
stances where the claimant had
formerly lived and worked in the UK
but was resident in another EU
member state at the time when the
claim was made.
The present case related to a claim
for carer’s allowance for care provid-
(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regu-
lations 2011 (SI 2011 No 2426))
provided:
“A person to whom... Regulation
(EC) No 883/2004 applies shall not
be entitled to an allowance under this
section for a period unless during that
period the UK is competent for pay-
ment of sickness benefits in cash to
the person for the purposes of... the
Regulation... ”
That provision underlay the secre-
tary of state’s refusal of the claimant’s
application for benefit. The ultimate
question was whether in the claim-
ant’s circumstances the UK was the
competent state for the purposes of
Regulation 883/2004.
Regulation 883/2004 was
concerned with the co-ordination,
not with the harmonisation, of social
security systems within the EU. The
basic rule was that persons to whom
the Regulation applied were at any
given time subject to the legislation of
only one member state, determined
in accordance with the Regulation.
That was “the principle of single
applicable legislation”, described in
recital 18a to the Regulation as being
one of great importance.
That principle and the rules under
Title II of Regulation 883/2004 were
the starting point for determining
which state’s legislation applied. It
was common ground that the claim-
ant fell within article 11(3)(e) and was
subject to the legislation of Cyprus, as
the state of residence. To express the
same point in another way, Cyprus
was in his case the state of applicable
legislation under Title II.
As its wording made clear and as
was again common ground, article
11(3)(e) was without prejudice to
other provisions of the Regulation
guaranteeing benefits under the
legislation of another member state.
The only other provision relied on by
the claimant was article 21.
Article 21 applied to an “insured
person” as defined in article 1(c). The
first question to be asked under arti-
cle 21 was whether, in respect of hisclaim to UK benefit, the claimant fell
within that definition.
To fall within it, he would have to
meet the requisite conditions for
benefit “under the legislation of the
member state competent under Title
II” which had to mean the state of
applicable legislation under Title II.
That state was Cyprus, not the UK.
It followed that the claimant did not
get off the ground in his attempt to
bring his claim to UK benefit within
article 21.
Even without the definition of
“insured person” in article 1(c), the
“competent member state” within
article 21 was the state of applicable
legislation. That was the natural
interpretation of the expression
within the Regulation as a whole and
gave article 21 a perfectly sensible
meaning and effect.
It was erroneous to proceed on the
basis that because the claimant was
entitled to an old-age pension under
the legislation of the UK he was “in-
sured” for all relevant purposes with
the Department for Work and Pen-
sions at the time of the application for
benefit, so that the department was
the competent institution and the
UK was the competent member state.
Such an approach would cut across
the basic scheme of the Regulation.
As to the claimant’s alternative
argument, there was certainly a close
relationship between carer’s allow-
ance and attendance allowance but
they remained separate benefits with
different conditions of entitlement
and had to be claimed by, and were
payable to, different people.
It was artificial to contend that in
the case of a claim for carer’s allow-
ance the “competent member state”
under article 21 was the state that was
competent in relation to the attend-
ance allowance payable to the severe-
ly disabled person for whom the care
was provided, rather than the state
that was otherwise competent in
relation to claims by the insured
person.
There was nothing in the languageCourt of Appeal
Published August 3, 2020
Konevod v Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions
Before Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice
Simler and Sir Stephen Richards
[2020] EWCA Civ 809
Judgment June 30, 2020
Law Report
Limitations on entitlement to carer’s allowance when the
care provider is living in a European Union member state
ed to Ms Sally Ozturk. Ms Ozturk had
been awarded an attendance allow-
ance in November 2014 and was in
receipt of a UK state pension. She had
retired to Cyprus. It was common
ground that she was entitled to
continued receipt of her attendance
allowance.
The claimant was a friend of Ms
Ozturk. He had lived and worked in
the UK, making national insurance
contributions sufficient to entitle him
in due course to an old-age pension.
He moved to Cyprus in December
2014, to act as Ms Ozturk’s carer and
applied to the secretary of state for a
carer’s allowance on the basis that he
provided at least 35 hours of volun-
tary care to Ms Ozturk each week. At
the time of his application he did not
work in or receive benefits from
either the UK or Cyprus. The applica-
tion was refused.
Carer’s allowance was a non-con-
tributory benefit governed by section
70 of the Social Security (Contribu-
tions and Benefits) Act 1972 and by
the Social Security (Invalid Care
Allowance) Regulations 1976 (SI 1976
No 409). The eligibility criteria were,
in summary, that first, the claimant
had regularly to provide at least 35
hours a week of care for a “severely
disabled person”, which was defined
to include a person in respect of
whom an attendance allowance was
payable.
Second, the claimant had to satisfy
prescribed requirements as to resi-
dence or presence in Great Britain,
save that those requirements did not
apply where on any day he or she was
habitually resident in another Euro-
pean Economic Area state, a relevant
EU regulation (including Regulation
883/2004) applied and he or she
could demonstrate a genuine and
sufficient link to the UK social secur-
ity system.
In addition, section 70(4A) of the
1972 Act (as inserted by regulation
5(3) of the Social Security (Disability
Living Allowance, Attendance Al-
lowance and Carer’s Allowance)of article 21 or the related definitions
to support such an interpretation of
the article. The natural meaning and
effect of an EU instrument such as
Regulation 883/2004 was not to be
distorted by reference to a particular
feature of national law. If the excep-
tional result for which the claimant
contended had been intended by the
EU legislature, it would have been the
subject of express provision.
It followed that it was Cyprus, not
the UK, that was the competent
member state under article 21 of Reg-
ulation 883/2004. In answer to the
ultimate question in the case the UK
was not the competent state and
section 70(4A) of the 1972 Act applied
to exclude the claimant from entitle-
ment to benefit.
Lord Justice Moylan and Lady
Justice Simler agreed.Solicitors: Free Representation
Unit, assisted by the Anti-Traff-
icking and Labour Exploitation
Unit; Treasury Solicitor.Kensington Palace
1st August, 2020
The Duke of Cambridge, President,
the Football Association, and Joint
Patron, the Royal Foundation of
The Duke and Duchess of
Cambridge, this afternoon attended
a screening of the Heads Up FA
Cup Final at Wembley Stadium via
video link in the garden of
Sandringham House.There is no Court Circular for
August 2Court Circular
‘He knows how to
make me laugh’
CRAIG NIVEN, 33, A SPORTS CONSULTANT, AND
SARAH ASHDOWN, 29, A MARKETING EXECUTIVE,
WERE MARRIED ON JUNE 9, 2018,
AT ODO’S BARN IN BILSINGTON, KENTTHEIR WEDDING WAS FEATURED IN
THE TIMES ON AUGUST 4, 2018Call 020 7782 5583 or email
[email protected]NOTICE UNDER SECTION 2 7 OF
THE TRUSTEE ACT 192 5
ARAMARK CCT PENSION PLAN -
PSNI SECTION
Pursuant to section 27 of the Trustee
Act 1925, Aramark CCT Trustees
Limited (the “Trustee”), the trustee of
the Aramark CCT Pension Plan (“the
Plan”), hereby gives notice that the
PSNI Section of the Plan commenced
winding up with effect from 30 June
2020 and that its assets will
be distributed. The Trustee requests
that: (a) any former employee off
Campbell Catering (NI) Limited who
believes that they may be entitled
to benefits under the Plan or, if that
person is deceased; (b) the spouse or
dependent of that person, who in either
case is (or thinks that they might
be) entitled to benefits under the Plan;
or(c) any other person who believes
that they may have a claim against the
Plan. provides details of their
membership (including full name,
current address, dates of
membership, date of birth, National
Insurance number, and any other
relevant information), interest, claim
or entitlement in writing to: Mr. Steven
Jones Capita Employee Solutions 17-1 9
Rochester
Row Westminster London SW1P
1JB Or by email:
[email protected] Details must
be sent within two months of the date
of publication of this notice. After the
expiry of the two-month period, the
Plan shall be wound up and its assets
will be distributed. The Trustee
will only have regard to claims of which
they have had prior written notice. The
Trustee shall not be liable to any
person whose claim has not been
notified to them by the expiry date off
this notice. Any individuals who have
already been contacted on behalf of the
Trustee regarding this matter need not
respond to this notice, as the Trustee
already has details of their claims and
entitlements. Issued on behalf off
Aramark CCT Trustees Limited
(Trustee of the Aramark CCT Pension
Plan)CR-2 020 - 002542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY
COURTS OF ENGLAND AND
WALES
COMPANIES COURT (ChD)
IN THE MATTER OF WATCHSTONE
GROUP PLC
AND IN THE MATTER OF
THE COMPANIES ACT 2 006
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the order of the High Court off
Justice (Chancery Division) dated 2 1
July 2020 confirming the reduction off
share premium account off
£18, 370 ,268.40 of the above named
Company, and the Statement of Capital
approved by the Court, were registered
with the Registrar of Companies on 2 8
July 2020.
Dated 3 August 202 0
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Exchange House
Primrose Street
London EC2A 2EG
Tel: 020 7374 800 0
Fax: 020 7374 0888
Ref: 31 033363
Solicitors for the CompanyTHOMSON Audrey Patricia (née
Cornforth) passed away peacefully on
16th July 2020, aged 86. Pat was a
wonderful wife, mother and
grandmother and will be sadly missed
by her husband Archie, daughters
Elaine and Trina and all her loving
family. Private funeral service.JOB Rosedied suddenly in Winchester
on 28th July 2020, aged 84. Adored
widow of Roger, much loved mother of
Jonathan and Christopher and proud
grandmother of Tia and Poppy. Family
funeral in Farringdon to follow.MACAUSLAN Olivia Marjorie Rowan
(née Forest Smith) died on 14th July
2020, much missed by her children
(Rowan, Torquil, and Euan),
grandchildren (Isobel and Louise), and
lifelong friends.NATHAN On 7th July 2020 to Antonia
(née Nightingale) and Anthony, a son,
Arthur Anthony Peter, brother to Coco
and OttilieLegal NoticesDeathsBirthsMAY the God of hope fill you with all
joy and peace as you trust in him, so
that you may overflow with hope by the
power of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 15.13 (NIV)
Bible verses are provided by the
Bible SocietyBirths, Marriages and Deaths
Readers’
Lives
Celebrate the sparkle of an unforgettable
wedding in Readers’ Lives, a service in
contracted tributes50%
discount for
subscribers