[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Bills v Social Security Commissioner [2001] EWCA Civ 687 (3 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/687.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 687

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY
COMMISSIONER (MR EDWARD JACOBS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 3 May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER: This is an application by
2. Mr Geoffrey Bills, who has appeared in person, for permission to appeal from a decision made on 15 January 2001 by a Social Security Commissioner, Mr Edward Jacobs.
3. Mr Jacobs allowed the appeal of the Secretary of State from a decision of the Sutton Appeal Tribunal made on 25 April 2000. That decision allowed an appeal by Mr Bills against the Secretary of State's rejection of his claim for industrial injuries disablement benefit under Part V of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The essential issue was whether Mr Bills suffered personal injuries in an industrial accident within the meaning of Section 44 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
4. Mr Bills was employed as a driver by United Parcels Service. The Tribunal found that Mr Bills suffered "a series of back strains arising from his manual heavy parcel handling duties over the period 11 August 1997 to the end of September 1997 culminating in back pain". The Tribunal accepted that the problem lay with his having to lift heavy parcels of up to 70 kilograms. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the House of Lords in Roberts v Dorothea Slate Quarries 1948 2 AER 201, a case in which silicosis was treated as "injury by process" rather than "injury by accident".
5. Lord Porter said in a well-known passage in that case (at page 205 G-H):

"In truth, two types of case have not always been sufficiently differentiated. In the one type, there is found a single accident followed by a resultant injury, as in Brintons, Ltd. v. Turvey ... or a series of specific and ascertainable accidents followed by an injury which may be the consequence of any or all of them, as in Burrell (Charles) & Sons, Ltd. v. Selvage. In either case it is immaterial that the time at which the accident occurred cannot be located. In the other type, there is a continuous process going on substantially from day to day, though not necessarily from minute to minute or even from hour to hour, which gradually and over a period of years produces incapacity. In the first of these types, the resulting incapacity is held to be injury by accident. In the second it is not."

6. That decision has recently been discussed by the House of Lords in Chief Adjudication Officer v Faulds 2000 2 AER 961. In that case Lord Hope clarified the position as to "injury by accident" when he said (at page 969):

"What one is looking for in every case is an event or incident, or a series of events or incidents to which the condition can be attributed."

(see also the observations of Lord Clyde at pages 976-7).
7. The Commissioner stated in his written decision when he allowed the appeal from the Tribunal:

"The tribunal relied on a close reading of the old, but authoritative, decision in Roberts v Dorothea Slate Quarries Ltd. In my view, it was based on too close a reading that gave too much weight to the particular terms in which the decision was stated and too little weight to the underlying legal principles. That calls into question whether the tribunal applied the correct legal test."

8. Although this is an application for permission for an appeal to the Court of Appeal, Section 55 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 does not apply to this proposed appeal. The ordinary test applies in which permission to appeal should be granted if the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. It seems to me that it is arguable that the Commissioner in his quite short reasons was unduly critical of the reasoning of the Tribunal and that the Commissioner should not have thought it necessary to direct a rehearing. It is better for me to say no more than that.
9. I grant permission to appeal.
Order: Application for permission to appeal granted; copy of the judgment to be provided to the applicant at public expense.