![[2024] UKUT 222 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Case law
Case law
In its Response to the Appeal, Barnet referred the tribunal to the Supreme Court decision in Prest v Petrodel GroupResources Limited and others [2013] UKSC 34 (copy at pages 47 to 79 of bundle). Barnet had also provided the tribunal with a copy of CA v Hastings Borough Council [2022] UKUT 57 (AAC) (pages 36 to 45 bundle).Barnet relied on CA to support its position that applying regulation 49(5) and (6) of the 2006 Regulations is discretionary.
Shortly before the hearing on 17 June 2024, having received Barnet’s response to my directions on 14 June 2024, I arranged for my clerk to provide Ms Parry with a copy of R(SB) 57/83, a decision referred to in paragraphs 35 to 36 of CA. It is a short decision, and I took Ms Parry through it during the hearing
- Heading
- Section 1
- What this appeal is about
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The oral hearing of the appeal
- The legislative framework
- The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (“the 2006 regulations”)
- Subject to paragraph (10), where—
- Case law
- My decision
- Discussion Which decision was being appealed?
- Addressing whether ZA had capital or was to be treated as having capital
- Which options were available when calculating ZA’s capital through her shareholding in CG?
- How the tribunal dealt with Barnet’s other arguments
- Is Prest v Petrodel relevant when calculating ZA’s capital?
- Conclusions