Legal Method Coursework Part a
Legal Method coursework Part A
1. What were the material facts of the case?
The respondent is a married man who had recently been made redundant after 22 years of employment in June 1999. The respondent had a large family in which 8 kids were dependant on him and the other 3 were at university. The respondent occupied 11a Gallagher Road but when his family grew he also purchased 19 Gallagher road in 1992 two houses down from his current residence. The respondent lived on redundancy money until it ran out so he then applied for ‘job seekers allowance’. Rules state that one dwelling house can be disregarded when deciding upon whether the applicant’s capital exceeds £8,000. On March 22nd 2000 it was decided that the value of the second house would not be disregarded and therefore made him ineligible to receive the allowance. The respondents appeal to the tribunal was unsuccessful so on the 26th July 2002 the respondent appealed to the Commissioner who decided that there was “sufficient uncertainty” about the facts of the case so it could be remitted for a rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal. The tribunal heard the case remitted to them on the 26th July 2002, the respondent gave evidence which was accepted. The tribunal then accepted that 19 Gallagher road was not used solely by the claimants non dependent children and that the claimant himself did not use it only occasionally.
2. Explain, in your own words, the legal issues in this case.
The legal issue in this case is that in paragraph 1 of schedule 8 of the jobseekers regulations 2006 it states that “only one dwelling house shall be disregarded under this paragraph”, but in this case the respondent owns two different properties which are separated by two other houses. It was up to the tribunal to decide whether or not these two houses counted as one.
If the tribunal took the view that they were in fact two separate houses then only one house can be disregarded and the respondents
1. What were the material facts of the case?
The respondent is a married man who had recently been made redundant after 22 years of employment in June 1999. The respondent had a large family in which 8 kids were dependant on him and the other 3 were at university. The respondent occupied 11a Gallagher Road but when his family grew he also purchased 19 Gallagher road in 1992 two houses down from his current residence. The respondent lived on redundancy money until it ran out so he then applied for ‘job seekers allowance’. Rules state that one dwelling house can be disregarded when deciding upon whether the applicant’s capital exceeds £8,000. On March 22nd 2000 it was decided that the value of the second house would not be disregarded and therefore made him ineligible to receive the allowance. The respondents appeal to the tribunal was unsuccessful so on the 26th July 2002 the respondent appealed to the Commissioner who decided that there was “sufficient uncertainty” about the facts of the case so it could be remitted for a rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal. The tribunal heard the case remitted to them on the 26th July 2002, the respondent gave evidence which was accepted. The tribunal then accepted that 19 Gallagher road was not used solely by the claimants non dependent children and that the claimant himself did not use it only occasionally.
2. Explain, in your own words, the legal issues in this case.
The legal issue in this case is that in paragraph 1 of schedule 8 of the jobseekers regulations 2006 it states that “only one dwelling house shall be disregarded under this paragraph”, but in this case the respondent owns two different properties which are separated by two other houses. It was up to the tribunal to decide whether or not these two houses counted as one.
If the tribunal took the view that they were in fact two separate houses then only one house can be disregarded and the respondents