England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM SOCIAL SECURITY & CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
(COMMISSONER ROWLAND)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday 24 January 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: This is an unusual case. The application is an application by Mr McDoom for permission to appeal the decision of Mr Social Security Commissioner Rowland on 3 May 2001, when he refused Mr McDoom's appeal from a decision of a Social Security Appeals Tribunal which was made on 19 May 1999. The question before the tribunal and before Mr Commissioner Rowland was whether Mr McDoom was entitled to higher rate benefit payments in respect of his dietary needs, not only from 23 April 1981 from which date he was awarded those payments by a Tribunal in 1993, but from 1974.
2. Unfortunately, Mr McDoom suffers from very poor sight and is registered blind. According to the evidence he has been suffering from optic neuritis, as indicated by a letter from Mr Richard Knowlden, FRCS, in 1989. He has been suffering from that condition since 1973. He has been in receipt of DSS payments since 1974. The question is whether, in addition to his other benefits, he should have been paid the higher rate diet addition; that is an extra sum for maintaining a high vitamin B diet to assist in his seriously poor eyesight.
3. It is not necessary to go into the details of why it was that in 2001 the Social Security Commissioner was called upon to determine whether Mr McDoom should be paid benefits applying to the period before 23 April 1981, some 20 years previously. I do not fully understand why that has happened. Mr McDoom, who has addressed me today very helpfully and courteously, has explained that he has had a long and very difficult battle with various aspects of the social security and support system, having faced several tribunals. He was eventually assisted by the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
4. As Mr McDoom properly recognises, at this stage the role of this court is extremely the limited. The Tribunal from which Mr Rowland was hearing the appeal made a finding that there been disclosure of the requirement only in 1981. Mr Rowland granted him permission to appeal only because he thought that the Tribunal might not have properly considered whether there had been a dietary requirement between September 1980 and April 1981. It was for that reason alone that he permitted the appeal. Commissioner Rowland found on the facts that the Tribunal had not made any finding as to a dietary requirement before 23 April 1981.
5. In 1993 the Tribunal had considered this matter and, although a full copy of the Tribunal decision does not appear to have been available when the bundle was prepared, a copy has been made available to me by Mr McDoom. The 1993 Tribunal was satisfied that Mr McDoom had disabilities from the 1970s, but they were not satisfied, as was required, that those disabilities required a special diet until 1983. But they decided that the payment should be backdated in favour of Mr McDoom until 1981, but not before that. Mr Rowland was satisfied that, since that reason for identifying the date of 23 April 1981, there could be no requirement prior to that date.
6. The Tribunal and Mr Rowland had to act on such information as they had to hand. In his address to me, Mr McDoom has suggested to me there were matters before the Tribunal, and which he has handed up to me, which would have demonstrated that he had a special dietary need before 1981. He says that that had been made known to the authorities. In particular he mentioned the letter of Mr Knowlden, FRCS, to which I have referred. As far as Mr Knowlden's letter is concerned, it does not specifically identify any prior dietary need before a specific date, although it does establish, as no-one doubts, that Mr McDoom had serious illness problems before that date. Secondly, none of the material Mr McDoom has mentioned is sufficiently specific to show that the careful analysis of the Tribunal in 1993, and also Mr Rowland's very careful analysis of the 2000 decision and the other material, was flawed to the extent that this court should intervene.
7. The hearing before this court is not a re-hearing on the facts, but a consideration of whether there has been any error of law. I am afraid Mr McDoom has not persuaded me that Mr Rowland and the 1993 or the 2000 Tribunal erred in law, nor has he persuaded me that the finding of the Tribunal as to the commencement of the special dietary need was anything other than reasonable, bearing in mind that, for reasons which are good or bad, we are now having to look at this matter and at the detailed state of Mr McDoom's health 20 years in arrears.
8. I am sure Mr McDoom understands, although I will repeat it, that the findings of the Tribunal and the view of this court are saying nothing about whether he was seriously ill during the period in question. Nobody doubts that he had a significant degree of handicap during that period. The question is whether it has been sufficiently established that he had the particular need for the higher dietary rate of payment which he is claiming in these proceedings. That matter, I am afraid, has not been established and Mr Rowland cannot be criticised for the view that he took.
9. It follows that I am not able to grant permission to pursue the matter further in this court. I am grateful to Mr McDoom for the way he has put the matter and I am very sorry that he finds himself in his current situation.
Order: Permission to appeal refused.