R (on the application of Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Question 1

when was this judgement

Answer 1

2003

Question 2

which court

Answer 2

House of Lords

Question 3

how many judges

Answer 3

5

Bingham, Steyn, Hoffmann, Milltett, and Scott

Question 4

facts of the case

Answer 4

• 1998 A claimed asylum from Lithuania and began claiming income support
• November 99 decided she does not qualify
• December 99 terminated payments (she is still not made aware)

Question 5

ratio

Answer 5

constitutional principle that notice was required before that decision was considered a determination with legal effect as the individual affected had to be able to challenge that decision.
You must have the ability to challenge a decision that goes against your interest (principle of legality)

Question 6

outcome

Answer 6

Appeal was allowed (Lord Bingham dissenting) –> A had been entitled to receive income support until she had received proper notification of the determination of her asylum application, she received compensation.

Question 7

why did Lord Bingham disagree

Answer 7

felt he was unable to interpret the statute in a new way to allow notification of the decision, as the piece of legislation was made in order to stop asylum seeker benefits being paid after they didnt qualify