Roberts, R (On the Application Of) v Department for Work And Pensions

Judicial review is concerned with legality, not whether the reviewing judge would have reached a different result. The court may intervene where the decision-maker made an error of law, misunderstood the facts, or reached a perverse conclusion. A person whose rights are being determined is ordinarily entitled to a hearing, particularly where no lawful notice was received. However, the absence of a party does not require a decision to be reopened where the tribunal was not at fault and the party could not have contributed material assistance. Where the decision-maker correctly identified the issues, considered the relevant evidence and reasonably concluded that a rehearing could not affect the outcome, the court cannot interfere.

The claimant sought judicial review of a social security commissioner’s refusal of leave to appeal. The underlying proceedings concerned her claim for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and whether recurrent cysts were causally connected with an industrial injury suffered in 1978.

The appeal tribunal heard the matter in the claimant’s absence after notice had been sent to the address she had supplied, although she had subsequently moved. The tribunal refused to set aside its decision. The commissioner concluded that the tribunal had carefully considered the medical evidence and that a rehearing would achieve nothing. The central issue was whether the commissioner had applied the correct legal approach in assessing both the claimant’s absence and the likely materiality of any further evidence.

1. Judicial review threshold. The court could interfere with the commissioner’s decision only for legal error, misunderstanding of the facts, or a decision so unreasonable as to be perverse. It was not the court’s function to substitute its own view merely because it might have decided the matter differently.
2. Right to a hearing and notice. A person whose rights are being determined in litigation or a comparable benefits process is ordinarily entitled to a hearing. A decision made in the person’s absence without lawful notice would normally justify intervention. The tribunal had, however, sent notice to the claimant’s recorded address. Her failure to receive it resulted from her move and failure to provide a new address, rather than from any default by the tribunal.
3. Materiality of the absence. The commissioner was entitled to consider whether the claimant’s attendance or further evidence could have affected the result. The tribunal had examined the medical evidence and had reasonably concluded that the claimant’s own evidence would not materially assist on the causation issue, which depended on medical probability and the nature of cyst formation.
4. The commissioner identified the relevant issues, applied no incorrect test and reached a conclusion open to him on the material before him. The renewed application for judicial review was therefore refused. No application for costs was made.

The judgment describes the procedural history before the Administrative Court:

• Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the claimant’s appeal concerning Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and later refused to set aside its decision.
• Social security commissioner: refused leave to appeal on 25 March 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused permission for judicial review.