United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn)—I think that this appeal must fail. The facts are short, and not disputed. Certain conditions are laid down in the Act which must be fulfilled in order that a person may be entitled to a pension. If any question is raised as to whether the conditions continue to be fulfilled, then under section 7 (1) the question goes first to the local pension committee, who are to give their decision, and the pension officer may appeal to the central pension authority. If there is not an appeal, then the local committee's decision is final. But if there is an appeal, then the central committee's decision is final and conclusive. In this particular case, after the local committee had decided, and no appeal followed, the question was raised whether one of the conditions—namely, that relating to age—continued to be fulfilled. The point was taken to the local committee, who thought that the condition was fulfilled, or at all events that they were not entitled to reverse the previous decision. Then the case went on appeal to the central committee, who decided that the applicant was not entitled to any pension. Now it is clear that the decision of the central committee was final and conclusive so far as that question went, if they had jurisdiction. The real argument put forward by counsel, whose brevity added force to his argument, was that the words in section 7, “whether those conditions continued to be fulfilled” could not apply to the condition of age, because when a person is once seventy he must be always seventy, and there is no part of the United Kingdom so fortunate that people grow younger in it. In my opinion that is not an accurate view. Section 9 evidently contemplates the possibility of error, and the claimant being obliged to recoup the Treasury for what has been paid in error, it would be very unlikely indeed that there should be no machinery in an Act like this to provide for a case like that. If the argument of the appellant is right this strange result might ensue, that an applicant would be continually entitled to be paid, and the Crown continually entitled to be repaid. That is a conclusion at which I cannot arrive unless I find no other way of construing the Act. I think that the true view is that if any of the statutory conditions are not fulfilled then the machinery can be put in motion and the question brought before the local committee, and then there may be an appeal to the central committee. It is true that the result of so holding is to allow the question of age to be raised repeatedly by the Crown. The same is also true of the claimant, who can repeatedly renew his or her application. I cannot see that there is any injustice in that. I can imagine no other way in which we can prevent the perpetuation of wrong payments or of wrong exclusions. I think that this is the way which the Act of Parliament has provided. It is impossible to prevent by Act of Parliament unreasonable process or litigation. All we can do is to provide means for redressing errors which may be made under those circumstances. I think that the decision of the Court of Appeal was right and ought to be upheld and this appeal dismissed.

Lord Ashbourne—I am of the same opinion. The case has been argued with force, ability, and ingenuity, but the task set before appellant's counsel was extremely difficult. It would really require the Act of Parliament to be drafted differently to give force to many of their contentions. I do not think that the Act is drawn in the most satisfactory way. Some things might have been stated more clearly. But Acts of Parliament must be interpreted as they stand, and no real force can be given to the contentions addressed to the House by the appellant. The governing condition of the whole statute is age. The contention put forward was that once age has been found by the local or central pension authority, that was final and conclusive, and it could never be interfered with. Would it not be an element of absurdity, if it were found that a wrong decision had been arrived at, that the pensioner should go on receiving on the one hand and disgorging on the other?

Lord Alverstone and Lord Atkinson concurred.

Lord Shaw—I am of the same opinion, and if it had not been for the ingenious argument addressed to the House by the learned counsel for the appellant I should have thought the point incapable of argument.