I know there are various decisions which deal with the difference in meaning in Social Security law between:

"in receipt of"

"entitled to"

and

"in payment"

Anybody able to point me in the right direction with references?

We need it for a case involving the interpretation of Article 14(2) of the Order in Council for USA /UK co-operation (what fun---- they even seem to have benefits in ameriKa which is perhaps the most shocking thing about the case).

Thanks.

Martin.

It's difficult to get sensible search results from the usual sources, but here's a few ideas:

- R(IS) 10/94 and (on appeal) Rider v CAO

- R(SB) 5/83

- R(SB) 12/87

- Funeral payment cases where someone has to be "in receipt of" a qualifying benefit.

- Insurance Officer v McCafferey (NICA and HL)

- R v Social Fund Inspector ex p Davey (1998)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1998/984.html

Phrases like that tend to mean what the decision-maker thinks they should mean in the particular context.


DISCLAIMER: This post is intended as a general contribution to the subject-matter under discussion. It is not intended to be relied upon as legal advice. Any person with a similar or identical problem should seek advice from a welfare rights adviser or a lawyer specialising in welfare rights law.

See also R 4/94 (IS), a Northern Ireland decision.

http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/law_and_legislation/nidoc_database.htm