Barnett v Department Of Social Security

Reasons for a judicial decision should be recorded sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review. A court may strike out a claim for delay even during the limitation period, but that is a strong and unusual course requiring a proper evidential and legal basis. Missing departmental records do not, without more, establish that documents were never submitted. A litigant with a small claim is entitled to fair treatment equal to that afforded to a wealthy litigant. Where an administrative claim may have been lost or stalled, a practical procedure for resubmission and processing may be preferable to further litigation.

Mr Barnett claimed unpaid social-security benefits from the Department of Social Security. The county court struck out his claim, apparently because of delay and alleged prejudice caused by missing records. On appeal, His Honour Judge Reynolds upheld that decision, although no transcript or reliable record of the district judge’s reasons was available.

Before the Court of Appeal, the central issues were whether the absence of recorded reasons made effective appellate review impossible, whether strike-out for delay was justified during the limitation period, and whether the Department could rely on its inability to find records concerning Mr Barnett’s earlier claim forms.

1. Application adjourned. Lord Justice Sedley adjourned the application for permission to appeal and directed that the judgment be transcribed at public expense and supplied to both parties.
2. A decision subject to appeal must have recorded reasons. Without a record of the district judge’s reasoning, the circuit judge could not properly determine whether an error of law had occurred. The resulting appeal was therefore defective in a way that engaged the requirements of a fair trial.
3. A claim may be struck out for delay even when brought within the limitation period: [2000] ELR 345. Nevertheless, doing so is a strong and unusual exercise, particularly where the alleged prejudice arises from the defendant’s own record-keeping or administrative failures.
4. The Department’s inability to locate the missing girocheque forms did not prove that Mr Barnett had failed to return them. The conflicting departmental records disclosed a factual issue requiring investigation, and it was difficult to accept that the Department could legitimately rely on the loss of its records as a basis for disposing of the claim.
5. Mr Barnett was entitled to have his small claim dealt with as fairly as any claim brought by a wealthy litigant. The court indicated that a fresh claim, handed directly to the Department so that it could be processed, might provide a sensible practical solution and avoid further expense and stress.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal adjourned.
• Clerkenwell County Court: Deputy District Judge Muskath struck out the claim on 23 October 2000.
• Appeal to the circuit judge: His Honour Judge Reynolds upheld the strike-out, despite having no transcript or reliable record of the district judge’s reasons.