[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 >> [2003] NISSCSC C18/03-04(IB) (16 March 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/2003/C18_03-04(IB).html Cite as: [2003] NISSCSC C18/3-4(IB), [2003] NISSCSC C18/03-04(IB)

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

[2003] NISSCSC C18/03-04(IB) (16 March 2004)

 


Decision No: C18/03-04(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 INCAPACITY BENEFIT Application by the claimant for leave to appeal and appeal to a Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision dated 20 August 2003 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against a decision dated 20 August 2003 of an Appeal Tribunal sitting at Cookstown. That Tribunal disallowed the claimant's appeal against a Departmental decision maker's decision dated 7 May 2003 superseding an earlier decision awarding incapacity benefit (IB) and deciding that the claimant was not incapable of work and therefore not entitled to incapacity benefit from and including 7 May 2003.
2. The claimant appealed to the Tribunal by letter received on 22 May 2003. This letter set out the grounds of appeal in some detail and included contentions that he could not carry out certain activities which he had been found able to carry out and which had contributed to the decision that he did not satisfy the personal capability assessment. He did not seek a hearing and, as it was entitled to do, the Tribunal determined the matter on the papers.
3. The claimant sought leave to appeal to me. In his appeal to me he is represented by Mr Hatton of the Law Centre (NI). The Department is represented by Miss Fleming of the Decision Making and Appeals Unit. Both representatives have expressed the view that the Tribunal's decision was in error of law because the reasoning was inadequate in that it contained no assessment of the evidence.
4. I grant leave. With the consent of the two representatives (for whose assistance I am obliged), I treat the application as an appeal and proceed to determine any question arising thereon as though it arose on appeal.
5. I set the Tribunal's decision aside as in error of law because the reasons do not adequately explain the decision. There was a conflict of evidence in the appeal papers between the Incapacity for Work questionnaire (IB50(NI) 2000) received on 9 September 2002 and the Incapacity for Work medical report form (IB85) dated 21 February 2003. The appeal letter raised disagreements with the IB85. The Tribunal was quite entitled to prefer the IB85 (as it appears to have done) but it has given no indication why it did so. Even when dealing with a "paper hearing" a Tribunal is required to give adequate reasons for its decision. It has not done so in this case and the decision is therefore in error of law.
6. I remit the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing and direct that Tribunal to give adequate reasons for its decision including an indication of its assessment of conflicting evidence. This need not be lengthy.
7. The fact that I have set the above decision aside is not to be taken as an indication of the eventual substantive outcome.

(signed): M F Brown

Commissioner

16 March 2004