R v SBC ex parte Singer 1973 - does anyone have a copy of the case that they could share?

R v SBC ex parte Singer 1973 - deals with the legal definition of capital and income.

Does anyone have a copy of the case that they could share?

Thanks,

EKS

I dont have a copy but the next part of the reference is 1 WLR 713 so you might want to get a day ticket to a university law library look through the Weekly Law Reports and take a copy of the Report ( or you might know a law student who has access and can get hold of it for free)

From Chandler:  [36] The loans in the present case have the essential feature of income identified by the court in Singer [R v SBC ex parte Singer [1973] 1 WLR 713], namely an element of periodic recurrence. Indeed, they provide a good example of the situation which the court found it difficult to visualise as likely to be encountered in practice: the periodically recurrent receipt of loans qualifying as income. ...”

Look at R(CS)2/08, CIS/507/1997 and Chandler v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another
[2007] EWCA Civ 1211 CA (Latham, Dyson and Jacob LJJ)

Singer is cited in CH/412/2007 where it states at paras 14-15

“14. I consider the most appropriate starting point to be the decision in R v Supplementary Benefits Commission, ex parte Singer [1973] 1 WLR 713. This was given in the context of the assessment of resources in order to determine entitlement to a publicly funded benefit (legal aid), an assessment moreover carried out by the same body as had to assess claims for certain income related social security benefits under earlier statutory regimes. Although there was a definition of “income” in the relevant legal aid regulations, I do not regard the terms of that definition as detracting from the value of the Divisional Court’s observations for present purposes. According to the Court, the purpose of the definition was merely “to secure that receipts which would, in a colloquial sense, be regarded as part of a person’s income, should not escape from consideration in the assessment of legal aid entitlement by reason only that they were receivable qua “benefits and privileges” and not by legal right “ (717C-D).

15. In the case, the Divisional Court held (717 D-E) that “The essential feature, in our judgement, of receipts by way of income is that they display an element of periodic recurrence. Income cannot include ad hoc receipts.” It is noteworthy that in rejecting a submission that “income” be given a wider meaning, the Court gave, as an example of what would be a “quite bizarre result”, the treating as income of a win in a football pool”.

Guys - this is all massively helpful, thank you!