Mr Commissioner Mesher held at para 14 of CH/3817/2004 that D&A Reg 3 is not exhaustive and that a partner could be considered to be a person affected by a decision:
“I think that the Council and the Secretary of State are right in saying that “a claimant” in regulation 3(1)(a) must mean the claimant on whose claim the decision in question was given. Plainly, by virtue of regulation 3(2), it does not mean any person who has made any claim for HB or CTB. Nor do I think that it can mean a person who has made such a claim and can show an effect on her rights, duties and obligations. But where the Council and the Secretary of State go wrong is in arguing that regulation 3(2) provides an exhaustive specification of who can be a “person affected by a relevant decision”. Paragraph 23(2) of Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act allows regulations to specify who is to be treated as a person affected and who is not to be so treated. Regulation 3 only gives effect to the first part of that power. There is no express specification of persons who are not to be treated as persons affected and regulation 3(1) is not in the form of “a person is to be treated as a person affected … only where”. Thus, while regulation 3 conveniently puts the status of certain categories of person beyond argument, in my judgment it is still open to a person to argue that she is a person affected by a relevant decision for the purposes of paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act in the ordinary meaning to be given to that term.”
.
