[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1996] NISSCSC A9/96(IVB) (25 June 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1996/A9_96(IVB).html Cite as: [1996] NISSCSC A9/96(IVB)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1996] NISSCSC A9/96(IVB) (25 June 1996)

 


A9/96(IVB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

INVALIDITY BENEFIT

Application by the claimant for leave to appeal

to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of

Lisburn Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 22 August 1995

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of Lisburn Social Security Appeal Tribunal; whereby it was held that he was not entitled to invalidity benefit for the period from 16 November 1994 to 1 July 1995.
2. The Tribunal hearing on 22 August 1995 had been preceded by an earlier hearing on 11 April 1995, which had been adjourned with a request for further medical evidence. The claimant had been examined by a Dr R? on 1 September 1994, and an up-to-date report from the same doctor was requested. However, owing to the changes in procedure brought about by the introduction of incapacity benefit from 13 April 1995, it was not possible to arrange for a re-examination by Dr R? and the claimant was informed that his case would be relisted without any further examination report. At the same time the claimant was advised that he could submit any additional evidence of his own to the Tribunal. There is nothing to suggest that, at the further hearing of the appeal on 22 August 1995 before a new Tribunal, the claimant made any request for an adjournment or questioned the absence of additional medical evidence.
3. The grounds of the claimant's application for leave to appeal to the Commissioner are that the Tribunal (a) made a decision supported by insufficient evidence and (b) breached the rules of natural justice as outlined in an attached letter. In that letter the claimant questioned the adequacy of the Tribunal's recorded decision, with particular reference to their findings of fact material to the decision, and submitted that the Tribunal should have exercised their power under section 51(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to obtain additional medical evidence.
4. Having studied the Tribunal's decision as recorded on form AT3, I agree that the entries at Part 2, "Findings of fact material to the decision" include statements which do not fall within that category. This is by no means an uncommon occurrence; but, as I have commented frequently in the past, there is no statutory authority for the layout of form AT3, and it has no particular significance. All that matters is that the recorded decision should contain all the material now required by regulation 23(2) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, and it is of no consequence whether such material appears under its correct heading or elsewhere in the decision. As I have indicated, I accept that in this instance the section of form AT3 intended for material findings of fact contained statements which should not be there. Equally, the Tribunal's recorded reasons for decision included statements which in my view should more properly have appeared under the heading of "Findings of fact". I refer in particular to:- "Tribunal were satisfied Mr S? was capable of some work eg telephone receptionist on a part-time basis."; "He is capable of light work of a mainly sedentary nature". Such misplacing of entries does not however represent an error in point of law and I accordingly reject the first ground of the claimant's application.
5. Turning now to the Tribunal's decision to proceed with the hearing on 22 August 1995, despite the absence of the additional medical evidence requested by the previous Tribunal, I am also of the opinion that this did not constitute an error in point of law. It was for the Tribunal to decide whether they had sufficient evidence, medical and otherwise, to enable them to proceed with the case, and in reaching their decision on this subject it would have been proper for them to consider any request for an adjournment which might have been made by either of the parties. The claimant had been informed in advance of the hearing that the case would be relisted without any further examination report and that he could if he wished submit additional evidence of his own. In these circumstances, there is in my view nothing to suggest that the Tribunal erred in law in proceeding with the appeal, and altogether the conclusion which I have reached is that the grounds relied upon by the claimant in his application for leave to appeal to the Commissioner are without substance.
6. I have also considered whether there is any other valid ground for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in this case is or may be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there is not. Leave to appeal will accordingly be refused.

(Signed): R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

25 June 1996