[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 >> [1994] NISSCSC A12-94(IS) (11 November 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1994/A12-94(IS).html Cite as: [1994] NISSCSC A12-94(IS)

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

[1994] NISSCSC A12-94(IS) (11 November 1994)

 


Application No: A12/94(IS)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 INCOME SUPPORT
Application by the claimant for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of Enniskillen Social Security Appeal Tribunal dated 31 May 1994

DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1. This is an application by the claimant for leave to appeal against the decision of Enniskillen Social Security Appeal Tribunal, whereby it was held by a majority that there had been an overpayment of income support as a result of the claimant's failure to disclose a material fact, and that the overpayment was recoverable by the Agency. In addition the Tribunal unanimously held that there should be no recovery from a building society; but that is not an aspect of the case which is presently in dispute.
2. The claimant's appeal to the Tribunal was against the Adjudication Officer's decision, by way of review and revision, that there had been an overpayment of income support to which the claimant was entitled for the period from 25/11/90 to 23/10/93; of which £408.84 was recoverable from the claimant, because he had failed to disclose the material fact that his mortgage interest rate had reduced. In his submission to the Appeal Tribunal the Adjudication Officer drew attention to certain errors in his earlier decision; but again that is not a matter on which there is any dispute. As appears from the record of the hearing, the claimant's case was that he and his wife had in fact informed the local Social Security Office of all the relevant changes in mortgage interest rates and that there had accordingly not been any failure to disclose. Having considered the matter, the Tribunal's majority decision on this aspect of the case was as follows:-

"There has been an overpayment of income support as a result of the

claimant's failure to disclose a material fact. This overpayment is

recoverable by the Agency."

The relevant findings of fact were recorded as follows:-

"No evidence of any notification of changes in mortgage interest

rates made by the claimant to Department of Health and Social

Services between 1.3.90-1.3.93.

We do not accept that changes were so notified. Income Support

has been overpaid for a period and amount yet to be clarified."

However, as will be apparent from the above finding, the Tribunal did not go on to conclude the appeal. Instead, they decided that it should be adjourned "to enable the Department of Health and Social Services to give a more detailed breakdown of the overpayment including dates and amounts." They also recorded that the same panel was required to conclude the case.

3. The claimant now seeks leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision that he failed to disclose the material fact of the changes in his mortgage interest rate on the grounds:-

"(1) That the decision was supported by no or insufficient evidence.

(2) That the majority arrived at a decision which no reasonable

Tribunal could have made."

These grounds are explained in detail in a letter from the claimant which accompanied his application for leave to appeal. The letter is on the case file and I do not propose to repeat it here.

4. My initial reaction on reading this application was that it was premature in that it concerned a case which had not yet been concluded by the Appeal Tribunal. The majority decision that the claimant had failed to disclose the changes in his mortgage interest rate did not finally dispose of the case, which was adjourned for further information. I note in passing that any decision based upon this further information may in its turn be disputed. However what it really comes down to is that at the present time the claimant is asking for leave to appeal against a finding of fact rather than against a decision which finally disposes of the issues in the case; which has clearly not been concluded. I am aware that the GB Commissioners have expressed different opinions on whether there is an appealable decision where a Tribunal has adjourned an appeal:- see Decisions CSIS 118/1990; CA126/1989; CSB83/1991 and CIS628/1992. My own view is that there is probably not a right of appeal against a decision which does not finally dispose of the issues between the parties. However, before expressing a considered opinion on that subject I would wish to hear arguments on both sides, and it does not seem to me that this is a case in which it would be appropriate to embark on that exercise. I say that because I do not, in any event, consider that the claimant has established any grounds for holding that the Tribunal's decision on the question of disclosure was erroneous in point of law. That was a disputed issue of fact which was the Tribunal's responsibility to decide, and having considered the matter in light of all the points raised by the claimant I find it quite impossible to say that their majority decision was unjustified or unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence at their disposal. It should be borne in mind in particular that the weight to be given to the evidence was essentially a matter for the Tribunal. Altogether, the conclusion which I have reached is that the grounds relied upon by the claimant are without foundation. Accordingly, irrespective of whether there is a right of appeal against a Tribunal's decision in an adjourned case, leave to appeal will in this instance be refused.
5. The claimant requested an oral hearing of his application for leave to appeal; but having considered the circumstances of the case and the reasons put forward in the request, I am satisfied that the application can properly be determined without a hearing. The request has therefore been refused.

(Signed): R. R. Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

11 November 1994