Oladeji v Social Security Commissioner

Permission to appeal out of time may properly be granted where the lower tribunal’s findings are insufficiently full and clear to determine whether a claimant had good cause for a late benefit claim. The adjudicating authority must make clear findings on all circumstances relevant to the claimant’s conduct, including information on which the claimant relied. Although the claimant bears the burden of establishing good cause, failure to address a document identified as crucial may create a sufficient doubt about the decision to justify permission to appeal. Delay in pursuing an appeal may also be excused where correspondence shows prompt action followed by explained financial difficulty.

The applicant sought jobseeker’s allowance retrospectively from September 1996. An adjudication officer allowed entitlement only from 11 February 1997 because of delay in claiming. The Social Security Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal, and the Social Security Commissioner dismissed a further appeal on 1 October 1999 and refused permission to appeal on 2 December 1999.

The applicant then applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal and an extension of time. She relied on a letter from the British High Commission which she said had led her to believe that claiming benefit would breach restrictions on public funds. The central issue was whether the tribunal had adequately considered that evidence when deciding whether she had shown good cause for the late claim.

1. Applications granted. Permission to appeal was granted, and the time for appealing was extended. Permission was also given to serve an amended notice of appeal and new skeleton arguments.
2. The relevant legal approach to good cause required attention to all the circumstances of the particular claimant’s situation. The reasonableness of the claimant’s conduct could be assessed properly only after full and clear findings of fact had been made.
3. The tribunal had recorded that the applicant was ignorant of her rights and had failed to make reasonable enquiries. However, it did not refer in its material facts, findings or reasons to the British High Commission letter, although the applicant’s appeal letter identified it as the information on which she had acted.
4. The omission was material. The Court could not say with confidence that the applicant lacked good cause when a document regarded by her as crucial had not been addressed. The applicant’s failure to attend the tribunal hearing and the burden resting on her did not remove the significance of that omission.
5. The extension of time was justified. Although approximately a year had elapsed after the Commissioner’s decision, the applicant had acted promptly after receiving it and had responded to the Civil Appeals Office’s misunderstanding. The remaining delay was sufficiently explained by her lack of funds to pay the court fee.

• Social Security Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed on 9 February 1998.
• Social Security Commissioner: appeal dismissed on 1 October 1999; permission to appeal refused on 2 December 1999.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal and an extension of time granted.