[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 >> [2004] A79/03-04(DLA) (18 October 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/2004/A79_03_04(DLA).html Cite as: [2004] A79/03-04(DLA), [2004] A79/3-4(DLA)

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

 


Application No: A79/03-04(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE 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 17 April 2003 DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

I refuse leave to appeal.

REASONS

Having considered the circumstances of the case and any reasons put forward in the request for a hearing, I am satisfied that the application can properly be determined without a hearing.

There is no arguable case that the Tribunal's decision was wrong in law.

The Tribunal was properly constituted. The Tribunal analysed the evidence rationally and in accordance with common sense. It made all necessary findings of fact material to its decision. There was evidence to support each of those findings. On those findings of fact, the Tribunal was entitled to make the decision that it did. There is nothing to suggest that the Tribunal misunderstood or misapplied the law. The full statement of the Tribunal's decision contains a detailed explanation of the reasons why the Tribunal made the decision that it did. There was no breach of the principles of natural justice or Human Rights.

In particular:

The fact that there has been an award of Disability Living Allowance for life in the past is not a bar to supersession of such an award providing grounds to supersede are established.

It is not reasonably arguable that there were no grounds to supersede in this case.

It is not reasonably arguable that the Tribunal's conclusion that the claimant's condition had improved was unsustainable on the evidence.

It is not reasonably arguable that the Tribunal's decision was unsustainable on the evidence.

It must be borne in mind that a tribunal is entitled to draw its own inferences and reach its own conclusions and however profoundly a Commissioner, as an appellate tribunal on an appeal from a tribunal on a point of law, may disagree with its views of the facts, he or she is not able to upset the tribunal's conclusions unless:

(a) there is no or no sufficient evidence to found them – which may occur when the inference or conclusion is based not on any facts but on speculation by the tribunal, or

(b) the primary facts do not justify the inference or conclusion drawn but lead irresistibly to the opposite conclusion, so that the conclusion reached may be regarded as perverse.

In this case I neither express disagreement nor agreement with the Tribunal's inferences and conclusions. However, even if I were in disagreement, that does not render the decision erroneous in point of law as the Tribunal's conclusions are based on sufficient evidence, its assessment of the evidence was reasonable and the primary facts found justify the conclusion.

(Signed): J A H MARTIN QC

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

(Dated): 18 October 2004