Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:
File Number:	CIS 213 2004
Appellant:	Martin
Respondent:	SSWP
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge C. Turnbull
Date Of Decision:	29/08/2008
Date Added:	23/09/2008
Main Category:	Capital
Main Subcategory:	Other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2010] AACR 9 Capital – whether property purchased in France in the claimant’s name was held on trust for the person who provided the purchase money The claimant was the registered owner of a house and adjoining land in France. He was receiving income support but did not disclose to the Department for Work and Pensions the existence of the property or the fact that it was in his name. After those facts came to light, he admitted that the property was in his name, but said that the beneficial owner was a Ms V, with whom he was living in England (but not as husband and wife). Ms V had provided the purchase price and the costs of its renovation, but the property had been put in the claimant’s name and he had bequeathed the usufruct to her under French law, to secure the succession to the property under French law of their son rather than Ms V’s adult children. The decision-maker decided that the property was the claimant’s capital for the purposes of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 and so he was not entitled to income support and there had been a recoverable overpayment. His appeal to an appeal tribunal was dismissed and he appealed to the Commissioner. The claimant argued that the applicable law was English law, under which he held the property on an implied trust for Ms V, and that the property was therefore not his capital. The Secretary of State responded that the applicable law was French law, under which there was no implied trust of the property, so that the claimant owned it absolutely. The Commissioner held that French law was the applicable law for determining the existence of the putative implied trust, and, on the basis of expert evidence, that French law gave Ms V no proprietary interest in the property. The claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. Permission was granted on all the grounds, save for the claimant’s challenge to the Commissioner’s findings of French law. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the Commissioner was entitled, on the facts found by him and on a proper understanding of common law principles, to conclude that French law was the applicable law, as France was the country with which the parties’ arrangements had the closest connection (Webb v Webb [1991] 1 WLR 1410 and Lightning v Lightning Electrical Contractors Ltd CA 23 April 1998 distinguished) (paragraphs 29 to 34); 2. the same result would follow from the application of Article 7 of the Hague Convention and the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 to ascertain the system of law with which the arrangement had the closest connection (paragraph 35); 3. in those circumstances there was no need to consider what would be the position about the terms of an implied trust of the property, if English law were applicable (paragraph 36); 4. in the light of the expert evidence the Commissioner had made a properly informed decision on French law which could not possibly be said to be perverse or plainly wrong and no important point of principle or practice arose which would justify the grant of permission for a second appeal (paragraph 37 to 42).
Decision(s) to Download:	CIS 0213 2004-02.doc [2010] AACR 9 bv.doc