Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1994] NISSCSC A5/94(IVB) (9 December 1993)

 


Application No: A5/94(IVB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

INVALIDITY 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

Newry Social Security Appeal Tribunal

dated 9 December 1993

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. In this case the claimant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Newry Social Security Appeal Tribunal; whereby it was held that he was not entitled in invalidity benefit for the period from 16 June 1993 to 29 January 1994.
2. The grounds of the claimant's application for leave to appeal are as follows:-

"The Tribunal failed to give an adequate statement of the reasons for

its decision and the findings of fact on which it was based. It also

made a decision based on insufficient evidence. From reading the

decision I do not understand why I was disallowed. There is reference

to the fact that I worked as a packer. This was two years before I

actually claimed benefit and indeed I had to finish that particular

job because of my condition."

3. I have considered this matter and have reached the conclusion that the grounds relied upon by the claimant are without substance. In my opinion the Tribunal's reasons for decision and findings of fact were adequately recorded and I am satisfied that the claimant should have had no difficulty in understanding why his appeal was disallowed. It was for the Tribunal to decide whether or not the claimant was capable of work and unless it could be said that their conclusion was perverse in a sense that, on the information at their disposal, no reasonable Tribunal could have reached it, the Commissioner has no power to intervene. In this instance the claimant makes the point that the Tribunal relied upon the fact that he had worked as a packer since he suffered his back injury. As I understand it, his argument is that the Tribunal had been wrong to regard this as an indication of his fitness for alternative light work, because he had had to give that employment up some time ago on account of his back condition. As I have said, it was for the Tribunal to decide whether or not the claimant was fit for work, and even if the information before the Tribunal on this particular point had been as limited as the claimant suggests, it would in my opinion have been very difficult to say that on the evidence as a whole, their decision was perverse. However, the important feature which the claimant has omitted to mention is that the Tribunal were informed by him that he had worked as a packer for about 12 months and only had to stop work when he was moved to another Department where he did not have the same freedom. In the light of this information I have no doubt that the Tribunal's decision was fully justified.
4. For the reasons given I am unable to accept the grounds relied upon by the claimant in support of his application for leave to appeal. I have also considered whether there are any other grounds for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal is or may be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there are not. Leave to appeal will therefore be refused.
5. The claimant has requested an oral hearing of his application; but having considered the circumstances of the case and the reasons put forward for the request I am satisfied that a hearing is not required. The request has accordingly been refused.

(Signed): R. R. Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

(Date):