Blackburn v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Where an application for permission to appeal raises no apparent issue of law, and the applicant has an available tribunal appeal to challenge factual findings, the Court of Appeal may refuse the application. A factual dispute should be pursued through the appropriate tribunal process. Administrative reconsideration of new evidence may also remove any issue requiring determination by the Court of Appeal.

Anthony Blackburn challenged findings made by Social Security Commissioner Jacobs that he had received benefit during periods when he was working. At an earlier hearing, the court identified no apparent issue of law but allowed Mr Blackburn to place two further letters before the relevant authorities. The Secretary of State reconsidered the matter under the supersession procedure, accepting one letter and remitting the corresponding period, but rejecting the significance of the other. The Secretary of State confirmed that Mr Blackburn could appeal the later decision to the relevant tribunal on the facts. The issue was whether any matter remained for the Court of Appeal to determine.

1. Application refused. The court dismissed the application because there was no outstanding issue which it could usefully determine.
2. Mr Blackburn’s challenge concerned whether he had been working while receiving benefit. The court had previously identified no apparent issue of law in that challenge. The two letters produced by him were therefore treated as new factual material requiring consideration by the relevant authorities rather than as grounds for appellate intervention by the Court of Appeal.
3. The Secretary of State reconsidered the first period under the supersession procedure and accepted that Mrs Hearn’s letter provided credible evidence that Mr Blackburn had not been working. That part of the charge was remitted. The Secretary of State did not accept that Miss McKenna’s statement established the position for the second period.
4. Any dispute about the second period remained a factual matter. Mr Blackburn had a right of appeal against the recent decision to the relevant tribunal, where he could advance his factual case. In those circumstances, no issue remained for the Court of Appeal’s determination. Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The application for permission to appeal was refused.
2. Social Security Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs had determined that Mr Blackburn received benefit during periods when he was working.
3. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. During reconsideration under the supersession procedure, the first period was remitted after acceptance of new evidence. The second period remained open to a factual appeal before the relevant tribunal.