[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 C21/99(IB) (28 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1999/C21_99(IB).html Cite as: [1999] NISSCSC C21/99(IB)

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

[1999] NISSCSC C21/99(IB) (28 February 2000)

 


Decision No: C21/99(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 24 March 1998
DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal, leave having been granted by a Commissioner, by the claimant against a decision dated 24th March 1998 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") sitting at Belfast. My decision is that the appeal is allowed, the Tribunal decision is set aside as in error of law and the matter is remitted to a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal for rehearing.
2. The claimant appealed on the OSSC1 (NI) form dated 20th May 1999. Essentially his grounds of appeal were that there had been a breach of natural justice in that he was not given an opportunity to state his case fairly. In essence the claimant considered this to be so because he had delivered to the Tribunal building a letter dated 20th March 1998 requesting a postponement of the Tribunal hearing on the grounds that he had to attend a funeral of a family member on the date of the hearing ie. 24th March 1998.
3. The claimant states (and I accept, having questioned him on the matter, his evidence as credible) that he hand delivered the said letter to the doorman in the Tribunal building. He asked the doorman should he go up to the Tribunal floor with the letter and was informed that it was not necessary. His representative supported him stating that the claimant had written the letter in the representative's office a very short distance from the Tribunal building and that the representative had instructed him to go immediately to the Tribunal office. The representative also informed me that the practice of the doorman of the building receiving letters has now ceased.
4. I accept completely that the said letter was not before the Tribunal and that the claimant was given no indication that the postponement request had either been received or acceded to.
5. There are, in addition, further factors which make this case somewhat unusual. The Tribunal was not informed that the claimant had previously satisfied at least one All Work Test and indeed the Adjudication Officer's submission in this respect was somewhat misleading. The Tribunal did have some information from the claimant's General Practitioner and it specifically alluded in the reasons for its decision to its difficulty in resolving the conflict in findings without questioning the claimant.
6. Taking all the above combination of factors into consideration and without being in any way critical of the Tribunal, I do consider that there has been a breach of natural justice in the case.
7. I would not wish this decision to be taken as a precedent for any suggestion that where a claimant has written requesting a postponement and that request has not been received, a claimant should automatically be entitled to have any future decision set aside on the grounds that such a request had actually been made. Each case is individual. However, in light of the somewhat unusual combination of circumstances in this case - the convincing and supported evidence that the said letter was delivered, the availability of a copy of the letter requesting the postponement, the Tribunal's expression of its own difficulties and the omission from the Adjudication Officer's submission of any references to previous All Work Tests, I do consider that there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice as alleged. The Tribunal, had it known the full facts would almost certainly have adjourned to enable the claimant to attend. Its ignorance of the facts led it to proceed and the claimant was thereby prevented from making his case in full.
8. I therefore set the decision aside and remit the matter to a differently constituted Appeal Tribunal for rehearing. I trust that the claimant will attend any future hearing.

(Signed): M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

28 February 2000