[2025] UKUT 166 (AAC)

S.30(13) of the 2014 Act provides that s.30 ceases to have effect “when the repeal of Part 1 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 made by Schedule 14 to the Welfare Reform Act 2012 has fully come into force.”

Article 2 of The Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No. 32 and Savings and Transitional Provisions) Order 2019 (S.I. 2019/167) (“the No.32 Commencement Order”) brought that repeal fully into force on 1 February 2019, which was before the date of the alleged declaration of eligibility.

Although Article 3 of that Order provides for certain cases to be “treated” as though the repeal had not come into force, it could be argued that the legislation has fully come into force. That is because the savings in Article 3 are “deeming provisions” which are only to be taken so far as necessary to achieve their purpose.

In that context the claimant relied on Szoma v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 64 (reported as R(IS) 2/06) where Lord Brown made the following statement regarding deeming provisions:

“[…] it would in my judgment be quite wrong to carry the fiction beyond its originally intended purpose so as to deem a person in fact lawfully here not to be here at all. “The intention of a deeming provision, in laying down a hypothesis, is that the hypothesis shall be carried as far as necessary to achieve the legislative purpose, but no further” – the effect of the authorities as summarised by Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 4th ed (2002), Section 304 at page 815.”

The claimant submitted that the “originally intended” purpose of the deeming provision here is the only issue at stake in the No.32 Commencement Order, that is, to allow certain claimants to remain on tax credits. The matter contained in s.30 of the 2014 Act is unconnected and should not be taken into account when considering the extent to which the deeming provision should be taken.