Logan-Salton v Social Security Commissioner

A tribunal does not err merely by failing to consider evidence that was never before it, and information held by an officer dealing with another benefit is not automatically transferred to the tribunal. However, finality and the proper presentation of evidence must be balanced against fairness. A fresh hearing may be arguable where relevant evidence was omitted because an expected representative became unavailable at short notice, the claimant may not have appreciated its significance, and the evidence could materially affect entitlement to a substantial benefit.

The applicant claimed the mobility component of disability living allowance for the period from 29 September 1995 to 4 June 1999. A tribunal awarded the benefit only until 28 September 1997, finding that his improved walking ability had existed from September 1997. The Social Security Commissioner refused permission to appeal on 11 October 2001.

The applicant relied on a medical report dated 9 September 1998, obtained at the Department’s initiative, which had not been before the tribunal. His expected representative had become ill shortly before the hearing, although the applicant proceeded on the basis of a written submission. The central issue was whether these circumstances justified an extension of time and permission to seek a fresh hearing.

Application allowed. Lord Justice Pill granted an extension of time and permission to appeal. The merits of the applicant’s entitlement were not determined.

1. The Commissioner had concluded that the tribunal did not err in law by failing to consider the report because it had not been before the tribunal. There was no deemed transfer of information between officers dealing with separate benefits.
2. Finality of proceedings and the expectation that evidence will be produced at the hearing are important. A party cannot ordinarily omit evidence and seek to introduce it at a later stage.
3. Nevertheless, the circumstances made a fresh hearing arguable. The applicant had expected his representative to attend and produce the report, but learned of the representative’s illness only shortly before the hearing. The report, obtained through the Department’s own benefit administration, contained material capable of supporting the claim. The applicant might not have understood its significance, and the existing medical evidence could have been assessed differently if the report had been available.
4. The claim concerned public funds and a substantial period of benefit. Permission should not be refused merely because the precise weekly amount was unknown or the claim involved a benefit rather than a private dispute. The Secretary of State’s own submission that the report should be considered by any new tribunal reinforced its relevance.

The formal order was that the application be allowed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 21 June 2002, Lord Justice Pill allowed the application, extended time and granted permission to appeal.
2. Social Security Commissioner — On 11 October 2001, refused permission to appeal without giving reasons.
3. Social security tribunal — Following a hearing at Newcastle upon Tyne on 21 June 2000, awarded the mobility component of disability living allowance from 29 September 1995 to 28 September 1997, but not for the later period.