[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 >> [2001] NISSCSC A4/01-02(JSA) (16 December 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/2001/A4_01-02(JSA).html Cite as: [2001] NISSCSC A4/1-2(JSA), [2001] NISSCSC A4/01-02(JSA)

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

[2001] NISSCSC A4/01-02(JSA) (16 December 2002)

 


A4/01-02(JSA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992
SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998

JOBSEEKERS ALLOWANCE

Application by the above-named for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision dated 24 November 2000

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application, by the claimant, for leave to appeal against the decision dated 24 November 2000 of an Appeal Tribunal sitting at Belfast. That Tribunal had disallowed the claimant's appeal against a decision to terminate his claim for Jobseeker's Allowance as and from 15 August 2000 on the basis that the claimant failed to provide a signed declaration of unemployment on 15 August 2000 and did not show good cause for so doing. The claimant re-claimed and was awarded the said allowance from and including 16 August 2000, only one days benefit is, therefore, involved.
2. The claimant had not attended the Tribunal hearing and he had not sought a postponement on the grounds of inability to attend. One of the claimant's initial grounds of appeal to me was that the Tribunal had erred in law because it had heard only one side. I consider there was no arguable error of law in that respect. A Tribunal is entitled to proceed in the absence of a party, that party having been given the opportunity (as the claimant was in this case) to attend the hearing. The claimant informs me that he was prevented from attending by a problem of his son's at school. The Tribunal was not, however, made aware of this before it reached its decision and I consider there is no arguable error of law in the Tribunal's proceeding without the claimant being present.
3. As regards the ground that the Tribunal misinterpreted evidence the claimant referred specifically to two statements of 21.9.00 and 16.8.00 which the Tribunal considered to be conflicting. He explained to me the circumstances surrounding the making of these statements. However, on the evidence before the Tribunal, it does not appear arguable that the Tribunal was not entitled to its view that these statements were conflicting.
4. The claimant also referred to evidence from the Department which he stated to me was misleading. However, again on the evidence before it, the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence appears reasonable.
5. As I explained to the claimant at the hearing before me, I can deal only with whether or not it is arguable that the Tribunal's interpretation and assessment of evidence before it was unreasonable. In my view it was not so arguable. It is unfortunate that the claimant did not attend and put his case before the Tribunal. This might or might not have led to a different outcome. However, it does not appear arguable that the Tribunal's decision was in error of law.
6. I therefore refuse the application for leave to appeal.

MOYA F BROWN

COMMISSIONER

16 December 2002