[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 >> [1998] NISSCSC A31/98(IB) (16 September 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1998/A31_98(IB).html Cite as: [1998] NISSCSC A31/98(IB)

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

[1998] NISSCSC A31/98(IB) (16 September 1998)

 


Application No: A31/98(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

INCAPACITY BENEFIT

Application by the above-named claimant for

leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from the decision of the

Limavady Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 21 August 1997

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision dated 21 August 1997 of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal sitting at Limavady.
2. I conducted an oral hearing of this application which the claimant attended and at which he was represented by Mr Breslin of the Law Centre, Londonderry. The Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr Fletcher.
3. At hearing and in previous correspondence it was contended that the Tribunal had erred in law in the following ways:-

(1) The Tribunal had available to it a report from Mr Alex M..., Consultant Clinical Psychologist, outlining mental capacity and that this is not included or mentioned in the record of the Tribunal's proceedings. Mr Beslin contended that the Tribunal erred in law in not recording such evidence and in not giving reasons for why it did not consider such evidence.

(2) As regards the travel warrant, Mr H... had alleged that same was sent for the wrong Medical Examination Centre. The Tribunal did not indicate why it did not accept that this was so.

4. Mr Fletcher said that examining the report from Mr M... probably explains why there was no specific reference to it in the Tribunal's findings and reasons, and in any event the reasons make it perfectly clear why Mr H... did not win his appeal. Mr Fletcher opposed the application. He further stated that the issue of a travel warrant was a side issue.
5. At the hearing I referred to the record of proceedings of the previously adjourned hearing by the same panel on 20 June 1997 which referred to the report by Mr M.... Mr H… who attended the hearing and who was Mr H...'s social worker said he was at that hearing and the Adjudication Officer was arguing that the report of Mr M... should not be considered. He said he did not know whether or not the report was before the tribunal.
6. As regards this report it appears to me highly unlikely that it was not considered by the Tribunal. The Adjudication Officer appeared to be arguing that it should not have been considered as part of the decision to set aside a previous Tribunal as it had not been before that previous Tribunal. The Tribunal of 20 June 1997 adjourned in order that a written submission be made to it on that matter. It then proceeded to consider Mr H...'s appeal in substance. Against that background it is highly unlikely that it did not consider the report of Mr M....
7. I do appreciate that there is not a specific reference to this report in the Tribunal's findings. The report itself was the subject of a ruling under Regulation 9 of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulation (Northern Ireland) 1987. Against that background it appears to me perfectly understandable why no specific mention was made of the report in the Tribunal's record.
8. I have to consider however overall whether or not the Tribunal in its record of its reasons made it clear why it reached the decision it did. It set out quite clearly why it thought that the claimant had not shown good cause for the non-attendance at the relevant medical. It set out clearly its views on the claimant's mental capacity and the reasons for those views. It is quite clear that it did not accept the claimant's evidence in relation to the travel warrant as being reliable and even if it had it would not have regarded it as constituting good cause.
9. I can therefore find no error in the Tribunal's decision and I dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

(Signed): M F Brown

COMMISSIONER

16 September 1998