Does anybody know if the Levy case is to be appealed further ie the one where the CoA decided that the Interpretation Act did not apply when deciding whether a claim form had been received or not when there was proof of posting.

I was pretty horrified about this myself as its an argument I've used a number of times. It seems to me that there is now no recourse for claimants whose claim forms are lost. Anybody got any interpretation that gives a bit more hope?

I'd like to know more about this too. I regularly quote the Interpretation Act not just for benefits cases, but for debt cases when creditors claim they haven't received my letter making offers of payment for clients.
Where can I find details of the decision in the Levy case?

see rightsnet news @

• Onus of proof where a claim form is posted but is said not to have been received: New Court of Appeal judgment (25 July 2006)
  
  
• Onus of proof where a claim form is posted but is said not to have been received: New DWP guidance following recent Court of Appeal judgment (3 July 2006)

So nobody knows whether its going any further then?

as a lawyer, having read that case report, i would be surprised.

whenever a question of interpretation of the words in ap articular statute arise, then the words of that statute are looked at first. it is only if there is any doubt about the result that anything else is looked at.

in this case, it is clear in the wording of the act. there was no room to bring in (as I gather people have tried to do ) analogy with service of e.g. court forms, which are of course deemed served 2 days after posting.

If it is appealed, I 'd be surprised if they get the decision overturned.

here is section 7 of the act:

7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post

and note the words UNLESS THE CONTRARY INTENTION APPEARS.

in the social security legislation in issue in Levy, the contrary intention did appear.

sorry folks.

much as I would liek to be wrong (as I think it's mad ..... all it needs is for DWP to say they didnt' get) that is the position.

(as usual, this is not advice and should not be read as such ..... )