UKSSCSC RA_1_1972 (26 June 1972)
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND APPEAL FROM
DECISION ON REVIEW OF ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE
BOARD ON A QUESTION OF LAW
Grounds on which an appeal may lie – requirement to give
Reasons for decision
A medical practitioner acting on behalf of the Attendance Allowance Board decided on review that a determination be not revised on the ground that the claimant had failed to satisfy him that he was "so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires attention or supervision to, the extent specified in Section 4(2) of the National Insurance (Old persons and widows' pensions and attendance allowance) Act 1970". The review decision on both the conditions contained in Section 4(2) of the Act was expressed in a single sentence which repeated the statutory language of both conditions prefaced by the words "…. on the evidence I am not satisfied that ….". There was a conflict of material evidence before the medical practitioner relevant to the question whether continual supervision was needed and, if so, whether to avoid substantial danger to the claimant or others.
(1) A decision may be held to be erroneous in law if:
(a) it contains a false proposition of law ex facie;
(b) it is supported by no evidence;
(c) the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination in question;
(d) there has been any breach of the obligation to act according to the demands of natural justice;
(e) there has been a failure adequately to observe the requirement in regulation 14(2) of the National Insurance (Attendance Allowance) Regulations [S.I. 1971 No. 621] to set out the reasons for the review decision in writing.
(2) The obligation to give reasons for the decision imports a requirement to do more than only to state the conclusion, and it is doing no more than stating a conclusion if the determining authority merely states that on the evidence the authority is not satisfied that the statutory conditions are met. It is not obligatory to deal with every piece of evidence or to over elaborate, but the minimum requirement must at least be that the claimant, looking at the decision, should be able to discern on the face of it the reasons why the evidence has failed to satisfy the authority. This decision did not satisfy the requirement in regulation 14(2).
(Signed) R. J. A. Temple,