Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1998] NISSCSC A50/98(IB) (22 October 1998)

 


Application No: A50/98(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 claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from a decision of the Omagh Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 30 January 1998 DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. In this case the claimant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal, whereby it was decided that Incapacity Benefit was not payable from and including 3 November 1997.
2. In her application for leave to appeal to the Commissioner the claimant submitted that the Tribunal did not give adequate reasons for its decision and also that there was a breach of natural justice in that on the day of the hearing a majority decision was given but a unanimous decision was notified in writing to the claimant.
3. Having considered the circumstances of the case and the reasons put forward in the request for an oral hearing, I am satisfied that the application can properly be determined without such a hearing.
4. On perusal of the Tribunal's written decision I conclude that there is no valid ground for holding that the decision of the Tribunal is or may be erroneous in point of law. In particular the Tribunal's decision set out proper findings of fact and gave adequate reasons for its decision.
5. It is clear that the Tribunal's decision in writing, on form AT3(A) indicated that its decision was unanimous. This was an obvious error of a typographical nature, as it is clearly recorded in the reasons for the decision why one of the members of the Tribunal dissented and the reasons for so dissenting, as required by regulation 23(3D) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995. I do not consider that it is appropriate for me to come to the conclusion that I should consider finding that the Tribunal's decision to be erroneous in law, particularly as any substituted decision which I might consider making would on the evidence of this case necessarily be to the same effect as that of the Tribunal. I am reinforced in coming to this conclusion by the decision of the Great Britain Commissioner, in CSDLA/257/96, where Mr Commissioner Mitchell QC, in an appeal, came to a similar conclusion in a case where any substituted decision which he might have made would, of necessity, have been to the same effect as the original decision of a Tribunal. Accordingly the only possible conclusion is that the error, which is not an error of substance, cannot amount to an error in point of law.
6. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that there are no valid grounds for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal was or might be erroneous in point of law. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.

(Signed): J A H Martin

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

22 October 1998