Spiropoulos, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

A judicial review claim seeking an appeal against a benefit decision becomes academic where the decision is reviewed and a favourable replacement decision gives the claimant the substantive result sought. The court should dismiss the claim in those circumstances. A claimant’s continued attendance may nevertheless be reasonable for costs purposes where uncertainty remains about whether the benefit has actually been paid and the defendant has failed to clarify the position. The court cannot order payment of benefit where that matter falls outside its jurisdiction.

The claimant challenged the refusal to allow an appeal concerning his entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance for a short period in 2005. Permission had been granted on one ground. Following permission, the Secretary of State reviewed the underlying decision and substituted a decision that the claimant was not disentitled to benefit, making an appeal unnecessary. The claimant nevertheless continued the proceedings because he believed that the benefit had not been paid and sought compensation for delay and additional costs. The issues were whether the claim remained justiciable and whether the defendant should receive its costs of attending the hearing.

1. Academic claim. The only claim for which permission had been granted was a claim to pursue an appeal. The underlying decision had been reviewed and replaced with a favourable decision. The claimant had therefore obtained the result sought, and the claim was dismissed as academic.
2. Payment and jurisdiction. The claimant’s continuing concern that the benefit had not been paid provided an understandable reason for pursuing the matter. The court had no jurisdiction in these proceedings to order payment of the benefit or compensation for delay. The defendant should have checked promptly whether the admitted sum had been paid and, if necessary, arranged payment or clearly explained the steps required.
3. Costs. Although the claim was hopeless once the favourable review decision had been made, it would not be appropriate to order the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs. The correspondence had earlier created uncertainty, and the defendant had not answered the claimant’s letter or checked whether payment had been made. The claimant’s attendance was therefore not unreasonable to the extent required for a costs order.
4. The claim was dismissed. No order for the defendant’s claimed attendance costs was made. The defendant was expected to verify payment and pay the benefit if it remained outstanding, or notify the claimant if payment had already been made.

Permission to proceed had been granted by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton on one ground. The defendant then reviewed the underlying benefit decision and substituted a favourable decision. The Administrative Court dismissed the remaining claim as academic.