 |
|
about da 
advisers benefits coalition on charging contact da disability benefits consortium home links membership policy and campaigns search shop site map support da tax credits what's new
Click on the decision number to view the full decision.
The meaning of spouse for the purposes of section 36 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (which covers bereavement benefits) refers to a husband or wife, not a non married partner.
The difference in treatment between married and unmarried survivors for the purposes of bereavement benefits is not so disproportionate in favouring formal legal marriage over unmarried cohabitation as to amount to unlawful discrimination for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.
This carer's allowance claim concerned a situation where the claimant's earnings were reduced part way through a month. Judge Rowland held that, in this case, the whole month should be treated as a single payment rather then to consider the earnings as two separate payments (one at a reduced rate and one at a full time rate - see CG/607/2008 where an employee's monthly payments were treated as each being a number of payments made in respect of single weeks). It was correct to treat the earnings as a single monthly payment because the claimant was paid an annual salary which was broken down into monthly payments.
This decision concerns entitlement to bereavement benefits for a claimant, who lived in Bangladesh and whose husband had lived in both Bangladesh and Great Britain.
The tribunal failed to properly consider the deceased's domicile at the time of his marriage. Under section 11(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the marriage would have been void if it was entered into outside England and Wales, which it was and the husband was at the time of the marriage domiciled in England and Wales.
This case consider the proper treatment of arrears or compensation payments made by local authority employers in respect of equal pay, equal treatment, sex discrimination or similar claims, when the employee in question has also been in receipt of means tested benefits over the period in question. The payments are treated as income, even if paid as a lump sum.
Cervical dystonia does not come within the definition of 'task-specific focal dystonia'.
Martin Inch - 31 August 2010
 |
