Trembath v Secretary Of State For Works & Pensions

Permission to appeal from a specialist social-security tribunal should be granted cautiously. The Court of Appeal should recognise the Commissioners’ expertise in applying complex social-security legislation and intervene only where there is a real prospect of error or inconsistent lower decisions require resolution.

For the lower-rate mobility component, entitlement under section 73(1)(d) depends on whether the claimant cannot take advantage of walking without guidance or supervision for most of the time. A tribunal must apply that statutory test, rather than a different test concerned with danger to the claimant or others.

The claimant had been awarded disability living allowance. In 2000, an adjudicating officer reviewed and superseded the earlier award and then refused to revise that decision. The Disability Appeal Tribunal dismissed the resulting appeals on 1 August 2001.

The Social Security Commissioner dismissed a further appeal on 18 April 2002. The claimant renewed her application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Permission had already been granted on the separate care-component cooking-test issue. The present judgment concerned the mobility component under section 73(1)(d) of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992, and whether a further appeal from the specialist appellate body was justified.

1. Renewed application refused. The Court of Appeal declined to grant permission to appeal on the mobility component. The Commissioner had applied the statutory language to the facts and there was no sufficient prospect of success.
2. The Appeal Tribunal had erred in considering whether the claimant might put herself or others in danger. That concept belonged to a different statutory test. Decision-makers had to determine entitlement under section 73(1)(d) by asking whether the claimant, disregarding the ability to use familiar routes independently, was unable to take advantage of walking without guidance or supervision for most of the time. This was confirmed in R(DLA)4/01.
3. The claimant could walk a limited distance independently and generally went out alone. Her panic attacks occurred once or twice a week. She could cope with an attack, summon help by mobile telephone and return home. Those facts did not establish that she could not take advantage of walking without guidance or supervision.
4. The unreported decision CDLA42/94 was materially distinguishable. It concerned a claimant who could not go out alone and who remained unable to take advantage of walking even when accompanied. Guidance given in that decision had to be read in its factual context.
5. Per Brooke LJ, applying Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security, the Court of Appeal should take an appropriately modest view when reviewing a proposed appeal from an expert tribunal in a highly specialised field. The Commissioners’ broader experience justified particular caution.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused on the mobility component; permission on the separate care-component cooking-test issue had already been granted.
2. Social Security Commissioner: appeal dismissed on 18 April 2002.
3. Disability Appeal Tribunal: appeals dismissed on 1 August 2001.
4. Adjudicating officers: an earlier disability living allowance award was reviewed and superseded on 12 July 2000, and a subsequent application for revision was refused about one month later.