[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1993] NISSCSC A3/93(SDA) (2 February 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1993/A3_93(SDA).html Cite as: [1993] NISSCSC A3/93(SDA)

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

[1993] NISSCSC A3/93(SDA) (2 February 1993)

 


A3/93(SDA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE Application for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Londonderry Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 2 February 1993 DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. In this case the claimant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Londonderry Social Security Appeal Tribunal, whereby it was decided that he was not entitled to severe disablement allowance for the period from 5 February 1992 to 1 October 1992.
2. The grounds relied upon by the claimant are:-

"That the Tribunal failed to apply the correct law, in this instance

case law, namely Commissioner Decision R(S)6/85 paragraphs 4, 5 and 6

which dealt with the question of retraining. This question particularly

applies to the position of radio telephone operator."

3. I have considered the claimant's grounds as set out above and have reached the conclusion that they are without substance. In GB Decision R(S)6/85 the decision of the Tribunal was set aside because of insufficient compliance with their obligations to make findings of fact and state reasons for decision. The Commissioner's comments on retraining were made in the context of a suggestion that the claimant might become fit for alternative light work "after appropriate retraining such as might be expected to be afforded by an employment rehabilitation course in the right field." These comments did not form any part of the Commissioner's reasons for finding that the Appeal Tribunal had erred in point of law; but were directed to explaining why he had reached the conclusion that the claimant had discharged the onus of proving that, over the material period, he was incapable of work. In the present instance the Tribunal expressly rejected the suggestion that retraining of any formal or technical nature would be required before the claimant would become capable of alternative work and in my view there is nothing to suggest that their approach to this aspect of the claim was erroneous in point of law.
4. One point which did occur to me on my first reading of the record of the Appeal Tribunal's decision in this case was that, like the Tribunal in R(S)6/85 they might have failed to include sufficient findings of fact. My doubts arose from the absence of any reference to the claimant's capacity for work under the heading "Findings of fact material to the decision" in Part 2 of Form AT3. However, I note that in Part 4 of the form, under the "reasons for decision", the Chairman has recorded:- "Appellant fit for a number of jobs for example radio telephone operator." This is a specific finding of fact and it does not lose its character as such by it's having been entered in the wrong section of the form. I am accordingly satisfied that the Tribunal in this case were not guilty of any failure to record adequate findings of fact.
5. I have further considered whether there are any other grounds for holding that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in this case is or might be erroneous in point of law and have reached the conclusion that there are not. Leave to appeal will therefore be refused.
6. 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 the application can properly be determined without a hearing. The request has accordingly been refused.

(Signed): R R Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER