Evans & Anor v The Chief Constable of the South Wales Police

Paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Police (Injury Benefit) Pensions Regulations 2006 refers to the statutory provisions governing the uprating of social security benefits, rather than to each annual uprating order made under those provisions. Injury-pension deductions therefore remain referable to the benefits actually payable, subject to protection against increases resulting from a material change in the governing statutory framework. The provision is intended to prevent over- or double-recovery while protecting pensioners against wholesale changes to the benefits regime. It does not freeze deductions at the benefit rates applicable when the officer retired.

The claimants were former police officers receiving injury pensions following retirement caused by duty-related injuries. They also received Incapacity Benefit and, in one case, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. The Chief Constable deducted the full weekly amounts of those benefits, including subsequent annual increases.

The claimants argued that paragraph 7(2) fixed the deductions by reference to the benefit amounts payable when they retired. The Chief Constable argued that it referred to the statutory framework governing benefit uprating and permitted deduction of the amounts actually payable, subject to the paragraph’s protection against relevant changes to that framework.

The central issue was the construction of the words governing scales of additional benefits.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court answered “yes” to the question formulated in the December 2016 order: paragraphs 7(1) and 7(2) of Schedule 3 entitled the Chief Constable to deduct the full sums of Incapacity Benefit and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit actually payable, including increases resulting from annual uprating, subject to paragraph 7(2).

2. On the ordinary meaning of the language, “the provisions governing scales of additional benefits” referred to the statutory framework in section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The word “governing” indicated the provisions establishing the framework and procedure for uprating. An annual uprating order was the product of that framework, not itself the governing provision.

3. The claimants’ construction would deprive the words “the provisions governing” of effect. It would also produce over- or double-recovery, because deductions would be frozen at historic benefit rates while both injury pensions and social security benefits increased over time. Paragraphs 7(1) and 7(2) were intended to provide like-for-like deductions and to prevent compensation twice over for the same injury.

4. Paragraph 7(2) also protected pensioners against a material change in the statutory regime governing benefit scales. If a change to section 150 resulted in an increase in the benefit received, that increase was to be disregarded. The Chief Constable did not have to undertake a speculative “shadow” exercise concerning how the Secretary of State or Parliament might have acted under earlier legislation; the pre-change figure would normally be known or ascertainable from official records.

5. The amendments relied upon by the claimants, including the provisions introduced by the Welfare Reform Act 2009 and the Welfare Reform Act 2012, did not alter the conclusion. The court considered that the statutory text, the avoidance of over-recovery and the purposive construction all supported the defendant’s interpretation.