Tolley (Deceased) v the Secretary of State for Work And Pensions

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 19 July 2012, which allowed the respondent's appeal from the First-tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal concluded that the respondent was entitled to receive the care component of disability living allowance after moving permanently from the United Kingdom to Spain in November 2002. The Upper Tribunal considered itself bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Ruas [2010] EWCA Civ 291.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Ruas was correctly decided regarding the interpretation of the ECJ judgment in Martinez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691.
2. Whether the court should make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the interpretation of European Community law relating to entitlement to disability living allowance when residing abroad.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that the Ruas decision was wrongly decided and that the Court of Appeal misunderstood the ECJ's judgment in Martinez Sala.
• The appellant sought a reference to the CJEU for clarification, relying on the court’s discretion to make such a reference as demonstrated in the decision of Case 173-09 Elchinov [2011] 1 CMLR 29.
• The appellant acknowledged difficulty in persuading the court to overturn Ruas directly because it is binding precedent.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that the Upper Tribunal’s decision was bound by the Court of Appeal's ruling in Ruas, which interpreted the ECJ judgment in Martinez Sala. The appellant challenged this interpretation and sought a reference to the CJEU, relying on the court’s discretion demonstrated in Elchinov. However, the court noted that the same issue had previously been considered and declined for reference by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which refused permission to appeal on the basis that the matter had been sufficiently settled. The court was not persuaded by additional authorities cited by the appellant to justify a new reference. Consequently, the court concluded it was inappropriate to make a reference to the CJEU and that the binding precedent of Ruas must be followed.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL.

This decision maintains the binding authority of the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Ruas and affirms that the respondent was entitled to receive the care component of disability living allowance after moving permanently abroad. No new precedent was established, and the court declined to refer the matter to the CJEU, thereby upholding the existing interpretation of European Community law in this context.