Murdoch v Department for Work and Pensions

A common-law duty of care cannot be imposed on a public authority where it would be incompatible with the statutory scheme governing the authority’s functions. Decisions concerning entitlement to social-security benefits, protected by statutory finality and appeal provisions, cannot be challenged in negligence. Administrative matters materially connected with such decisions are likewise protected where examining them would require the court to question the decision. Once an award has been made, the statutory right to payment may be enforced as a debt in the County Court. That remedy is part of the statutory scheme and weighs against adding a negligence claim for non-payment. The claim was therefore suitable for determination on a strike-out application and failed in law.

The appellant received incapacity benefit and income support. Payments stopped after the Department for Work and Pensions decided that he had failed without good cause to attend a medical examination. The Department later revised that decision, accepting that appointment letters had been sent to the wrong address, but payment of benefits and arrears was delayed.

The appellant claimed damages for negligence, alleging negligence in sending the appointment letters incorrectly and in failing to implement the later award. The County Court struck out the claim on the basis that no duty of care was owed. The appeal concerned whether the claim should be tried and whether a common-law duty was compatible with the statutory scheme.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claim was clearly bound to fail even assuming the pleaded facts were true. It was therefore appropriate to determine the issue on a strike-out application.
2. The relevant social-security decisions were “protected decisions” under Social Security Act 1998, section 17(1). The statutory scheme provided finality, revision, supersession and rights of appeal. The appellant accepted that negligence in making those decisions could not be actionable through a common-law duty of care.
3. Allegations concerning the sending of medical appointment letters, record-keeping and administrative checks were inextricably connected with the protected decisions. Resolving them would require the court to examine whether the decisions should have been different. A negligence claim based on those matters was therefore incompatible with the statutory scheme.
4. Any further decision required to restore income support was similarly protected. As to the purely operational failure to pay benefit awarded under the July 2002 decision, regulation 20 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 imposed a statutory obligation to pay. In the absence of an express remedy, the unpaid amount could be recovered as a debt in the County Court. Adding a negligence claim would impermissibly complicate the statutory scheme.
5. Alternatively, and obiter, the alleged duty would fail the principles identified in Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc [2007] 1 AC 181 and Rowley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 598. The exercise of statutory discretion was not a voluntary assumption of responsibility. The relationship lacked sufficient proximity, and it was not fair, just and reasonable to add an extra-statutory negligence claim to the carefully defined benefits scheme. Individual vulnerability did not provide a workable basis for distinguishing claimants.
6. The court distinguished R (A and Kanidagli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWHC 1585 (Admin) because the immigration scheme and the social-security scheme had materially different statutory features and remedies.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): appeal from the Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Court dismissed. The County Court’s order striking out the claim was upheld.