Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions

[1999] NISSCSC A98/99(IB) (5 June 2000)

 


Decision No: A98/99(IB)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998

INCAPACITY BENEFIT

Application by the above-named claimant for

leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner

on a question of law from a Tribunal's decision

dated 16 April 1999

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. Having considered the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the application can properly be determined without a hearing.
2. Having read the case papers it does not appear that there is any valid ground for holding that the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal is or may be erroneous in point of law.
3. In particular it is noted that the claimant seeks leave to appeal on the following point of law:-

"With the evidence provided, had the Tribunal acted reasonably

and interpreted the law correctly, it could not have made the

decision it did. Reasons for the decision are flawed as record

of proceedings are not accurate - I have provided the detail

enclosed."

The claimant attached a list of four points on which his argument's were based and which can be summarised as follows:-

(i) The Chairman accepted oral evidence with regard to the activities of rising and bending and kneeling but made no reference to written remarks made on the questionnaire (IB50). In addition oral evidence in relation to the claimant's difficulties in the activity of sitting was not accepted as it was for other activities and was not recorded in the findings of fact.

(ii) A reference to 'good days and bad days' was inaccurately recorded.

(iii) A reference to the claimant visiting his doctor 2 weeks before the Tribunal hearing was misconstrued and was inaccurately recorded.

(vi) Following a suggestion from the Medical Assessor to the Tribunal that depression would most likely arise at some stage, the claimant should have been questioned on his mental health.

Also it was alleged that the findings of fact produced by the Chairman were based on notes taken some six months after the hearing and therefore could not be guaranteed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

4. An opportunity was given to the claimant's present representative, Ms Davis of the Banbridge and District Citizens Advice Bureau, to demonstrate that the record of proceedings was not accurate. Two points were made by her in reply, by letter dated 23 February 2000, namely:-

(1) That the claimant is an intelligent, articulate and fair minded person in her opinion; and

(2) That the record of proceedings, in substance, consisted of notes made some six months after the hearing.

5. However, the opinion of an advocate or adviser is not of persuasive or probative value to a judicial body hearing an application for leave to appeal on a point of law.
6. In addition, the papers before me demonstrate that the findings of fact and reasons for decision are dated 16 April 1999 (although issued by administrative staff on 25 June 1999) and the record of proceedings is also dated 16 April 1999 (although issued by administrative staff on 26 October 1999). Therefore the findings of fact are clearly not based on any document that came into existence in or about 26 October 1999. Therefore there is no substance in the point that the findings of fact and reasons for decision are based on notes taken some six months after the hearing.
7. Moreover the record of proceedings in a case before a Social Security Appeal Tribunal does not purport to be a verbatim record of proceedings, and a Commissioner, deciding an appeal on a point of law, has no grounds or reasons in the present case to take issue with the Tribunal's record of proceedings.
8. The substantive points made by the claimant are points that, in effect, are attempting to reargue before a Commissioner the issues already argued before the Tribunal. If the appeal to a Commissioner was an appeal on the facts as well as on point of law these issues might be relevant. However, in light of a Commissioner's restrictive jurisdiction (restrictive because an appeal can only be successful if a decision is erroneous in point of law) there are, in my view, no grounds for granting leave to appeal in this case.
9. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.

(Signed): J A H Martin QC

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

5 June 2000