[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 >> [1999] NISSCSC C15/99(IB) (27 January 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1999/C15_99(IB).html Cite as: [1999] NISSCSC C15/99(IB)

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

[1999] NISSCSC C15/99(IB) (27 January 2000)

 


Decision No: C15/99(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 INCAPACITY BENEFIT Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision dated 26 October 1998
DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal, leave having been granted by the Tribunal Chairman, by the claimant against the decision dated 26 October 1998 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Newtownards. That Tribunal had disallowed claimant's appeal against an Adjudication Officer's decision dated 6 July 1998 in relation to claimant's claim for Incapacity Benefit. The Adjudication Officer's decision essentially contained three elements as follows:-

1. That claimant was subject to the All Work Test.

2. That the All Work Test could not be treated as satisfied as there had been a determination within the six months proceeding 15 June 1998 (the date of claim) that claimant was capable of work and claimant was not suffering from a specific disease or bodily or mental disablement which he had not been suffering from at the time of that determination, and no disease or bodily or mental disablement from which he had been suffering at the time of that determination had significantly worsened.

3. That claimant did not satisfy the All Work Test from and including 15 June 1998 because he did not have sufficient number of points on that test.

2. The Tribunal's decision dealt with only part of the Adjudication Officer's decision. It dismissed the appeal and stated that the condition's for treating the claimant as having satisfied the All Work Test had not been met and that he therefore could not be treated as having satisfied the test from and including 16 June 1998. The decision did not deal with whether or not the claimant had actually satisfied the test, although the Adjudication Officer's decision of 6 July 1998 had dealt with this and the submission to the Tribunal by the Adjudication Officer requested the Tribunal to deal with this if it considered that there were no grounds for treating the All Work Test as satisfied.
3. Claimant's grounds of appeal were contained in a letter dated 22 February 1999. In essence claimant submitted that the Tribunal had expressed the view that the law stated that he could not reapply for Incapacity Benefit for at least a period of six months even if he had suffered a different illness or disability, or if there had been significant deterioration.
4. Mr Fletcher of Central Adjudication Services commented on the matter by letter of 1 September 1999 and opposed the ground submitted by the claimant. Mr Fletcher stated that it was quite apparent from the Tribunal's findings of fact and reasons that the Tribunal had dealt with the question of whether or not there was any evidence regarding deterioration of claimant's physical and mental condition, or any additional incapacity since 16 March 1998 (the date of a previous Appeal Tribunal's decision disallowing Incapacity Benefit).
5. I agree with Mr Fletcher. It is quite apparent to me that the Tribunal did deal with the question of whether or not there was any additional incapacity or any deterioration and I reject that ground of appeal.
6. I also agree with Mr Fletcher however in that the Tribunal erred in failing to assess claimant on the All Work Test.
7. I therefore remit this matter to a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal which should rehear the matter in its entirety and deal with all the aspects of the Adjudication Officer's decision as mentioned above. The Tribunal will of course be limited in this matter in that it can deal only with those circumstances obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made.

(Signed): M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

27 January 2000