The LASA appeals team have decided to spend Friday afternoon chatting about when the 28 days to make a claim for IS following grant of refugee status starts to run from:

a) In counting the 28 days is the first day the date of receipt of the notice?

b) OR is it the case that the first day you count is the day after the receipt of the notice?

Definitive answer much appreciated.

Hi Martin

I would say b).

R(IB)4/02, paragraph 15: -

"The next issue is when “within one month” ends. In the first submission, the Secretary of State’s representative drew attention to CIS/550/1993 and R(S) 6/63, and accepted those authorities as establishing, in my view correctly, that “month” means “calendar month”, and that the period of a month does not include the date of notification itself. That is consistent with the general view taken in the law, as evidenced by rule 6.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the case of Radcliffe v. Bartholemew <1892> 1 QB 161, to which I drew attention in my directions. The period under regulation 53(4) is a clear calendar month. In other words, if the decision notice was sent on 24 July, the application is properly made if made by the end of 24 August. I express concern that the standard form leaflet sent in this case appears to imply that the month starts on the day of giving the decision, not the day after giving the decision, as the Secretary of State accepts".

Civil Procedure rule 6 deals with service of documents generally and the deemed day of service by post under 6.7 is the day after it was posted. That allows for the extra day.

Regards
Paul

The CPR is not strictly appicable here and I dont think that the quote above actually imports anything about "the day after" into social security statute. If it did, rule 2 would also be relavent to look at and that refers to "clear days". Rule 6 relates only to the deemed date of service, not time limits.

In statute "month" means a calender month (interpretation act 1978 sch 1) but that doesn't really help very much here.

However in general I think the Rt Hon Sir Nevip is correct, time starts to run the day after. The ordinary meaning of "within x days" also supports this view. i.e. within 5 days from say the 1st day of the month imlies by the 6th. I stand as ever to be shot down in flames by those more on the ball!

Does the 1976 Interpretation Act apply?

If so then this from sec 36 may sort it out:

36 Computation of time
In computing time for the purposes of any enactment, unless the contrary intention appears-
(a) a period of days from the happening of an event or the doing of any act or thing shall be deemed to be exclusive of the day in which the event happens or the act or thing is done;


However, Reg 21ZB is about "within 28 days of...." rather than within 28 days from.... does that make a difference?

I'm not sure that I agree that the CP rules have no application. Otherwise why would the commissioner refer to them. The general point in law about the deemed day of service being the day after the notice was sent means that the clock (for whatever period) starts running from the day after the date of the notice/decision.

So, a notice sent out on the 1st of the month allows the last day of a calender month to be on the 1st of the next month.

Likewise, a notice sent out on the 1st of the month allows the 28 days to start running from the 2nd of the month.

And, like my R Hon friend SLloyd, I'm also prepared to be shot down by anyone more clued up than me.

Cheers folks!

Nevip

The enabling legislation for the CPR is the Civil Procedure Act 1997 which says:

1. Civil Procedure Rules.— (1) There are to be rules of court (to be called “Civil Procedure Rules”) governing the practice and procedure to be followed in—
(a)the civil division of the Court of Appeal,
(b)the High Court, and
(c)county courts.
(2) Schedule 1 (which makes further provision about the extent of the power to make Civil Procedure Rules) is to have effect.


I.e the rules only apply to the courts set out at 1(a)-(c).

The commissioner uses the CPR as an example only, the clue is in the wording, "... consistent with the general view taken in the law, as evidenced by rule... ". So he uses the CPR a bit like a pursuasive, but non binding precendent, if you see what I mean!

Cheers for that. I follow you now.