Introduction

The case of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v. Carrington ([2021] EWCA Civ 174) presents a significant judicial examination of the application of Articles 7 and 10 of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 ("the 2004 Regulation") in the context of child benefit payments following the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union. The central parties in this case are Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs ("HMRC") and Mrs. Carrington, a UK resident who relocated permanently to Spain in 2011. The key issues revolve around the overpayment of child benefits after Mrs. Carrington's move abroad, the applicability of EU regulations post-Brexit, and the procedural considerations concerning the introduction of new legal points on appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

In this appellate proceeding, HMRC sought to introduce new points of law regarding Articles 7 and 10 of the 2004 Regulation, which were not previously raised in the lower tribunals. Permission was required from the Court of Appeal to consider these points. The court, after deliberation, granted HMRC permission to introduce these new legal points, considering factors such as the fairness to Mrs. Carrington, the relevance of the 2004 Regulation post-Brexit, sufficiency of factual findings, the potential decisive impact of the legal points, and the representation of Mrs. Carrington.

The Court emphasized that the 2004 Regulation remains pertinent due to specific provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement, ensuring that certain EU laws continue to apply in the UK under specific circumstances. The judgment concluded that allowing HMRC to raise these new points of law was appropriate and did not unfairly prejudice Mrs. Carrington, thereby enabling a comprehensive legal analysis that could influence future cases.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shaped the court's decision-making process. Notably, in Miskovic v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ([2011] EWCA Civ 16), the Court of Appeal established the high threshold for introducing new points of law on appeal, emphasizing that such points should not introduce new facts and should not unfairly prejudice any party. This precedent underscored the court's cautious approach in permitting HMRC to raise new legal arguments in the Carrington case.

Additionally, the judgment draws parallels with KR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ([2019] UKUT 85 (AAC)), where Article 7 of the 2004 Regulation was similarly applied. The Upper Tribunal’s interpretation in this case informed the Court of Appeal's understanding of how Articles 7, 68, and 59 of the 2004 and 2009 Regulations interplay in determining benefit payments across member states.

Legal Reasoning

The core of the court's legal reasoning centers on whether Articles 7 and 10 of the 2004 Regulation continue to hold relevance post-Brexit and whether they can be effectively applied to the case at hand. The court evaluated several factors:

• Effect on Mrs. Carrington: Ensuring that the introduction of new legal points does not unfairly disadvantage Mrs. Carrington.
• Relevance of the 2004 Regulation: Despite Brexit, certain provisions of the 2004 Regulation remain applicable due to the Withdrawal Agreement.
• Sufficiency of Factual Findings: There was no need to uncover new facts, as the essential facts were already established by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT).
• Decisive Nature of Legal Points: The legal points raised by HMRC regarding Article 7 have significant implications, potentially altering the outcome of the benefit payments.
• Representation: Addressing concerns about Mrs. Carrington's representation, ensuring that her ability to contest was not undermined.

The court concluded that the 2004 Regulation remains applicable under specific sections of the Withdrawal Agreement, thereby legitimizing HMRC's arguments. Moreover, the sufficient factual groundwork laid by the lower tribunals allowed the court to consider these new legal points without necessitating additional factual inquiries.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the administration of family benefits in the post-Brexit era. It clarifies that certain EU regulations continue to influence UK law, particularly concerning cross-border benefit claims. Future cases involving similar circumstances can reference this judgment to understand the ongoing applicability of EU regulations and the conditions under which new legal points can be introduced on appeal.

Furthermore, it underscores the judiciary's role in balancing legal rigor with procedural fairness, ensuring that appellants are not disadvantaged when new legal arguments are necessary for the just resolution of cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Regulation (EC) 883/2004

This regulation governs the coordination of social security systems within the European Union, ensuring that individuals moving between member states continue to receive social security benefits without interruption.

Articles 7 and 10 of the 2004 Regulation

• Article 7: Prevents the withdrawal of benefits solely based on the beneficiary residing in a member state different from the one administering the benefit.
• Article 10: Outlines the conditions under which benefits can be withdrawn or adjusted due to changes in residency or eligibility.

Withdrawal Agreement and Part Two, Title III

Following Brexit, the Withdrawal Agreement ensured that certain EU laws, including parts of the 2004 Regulation, remain applicable in the UK to protect citizens' rights. This continuity is crucial for cases like Carrington's, where cross-border benefit claims are involved.

McKenzie Friend

A McKenzie Friend is a person who assists a litigant in court proceedings without being a qualified lawyer. They provide support, such as taking notes or offering advice, but cannot speak on behalf of the litigant.

Conclusion

The judgment in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v. Carrington represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation and application of EU social security regulations within UK law post-Brexit. By permitting HMRC to introduce new points of law regarding Articles 7 and 10 of the 2004 Regulation, the Court of Appeal underscored the enduring relevance of certain EU regulations under the Withdrawal Agreement. This decision ensures that individuals like Mrs. Carrington, who have relocated within the EU, continue to have their benefit entitlements fairly assessed in light of complex cross-border legal frameworks.

Moreover, the court's careful consideration of procedural fairness, especially concerning representation, sets a precedent for future cases where new legal arguments may emerge on appeal. Overall, this judgment not only clarifies the application of existing regulations but also reinforces the judiciary's commitment to justice and legal integrity in a changing geopolitical landscape.

Legal practitioners and beneficiaries alike must take note of this decision's implications, as it shapes the ongoing discourse around social security benefits and international residency in a post-Brexit United Kingdom.