Viggers, R (on the application of) v Pensions Appeal Tribunal

Reasons given by a tribunal must enable the reviewing or appellate court to understand why the decision was reached. They need not address every evidential detail, but must identify and explain the issues vital to the conclusion. Where a tribunal departs substantially from a detailed medical assessment, it must explain the basis of that departure, including how the evidence and any composite assessment were evaluated. A decision may be irrational in judicial review terms because its reasoning is inadequate, without the court deciding that no rational tribunal could reach the same substantive outcome.

The claimant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal dated 18 March 2005. The decisions concerned the assessment of disablement pensions under the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983. One decision reduced an assessment from 70 per cent to 40 per cent. The other upheld an assessment of 6 to 14 per cent for the period from 1976 to 1995.

The claimant argued that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons and had acted irrationally. The central issue was whether the Tribunal sufficiently explained its treatment of the medical evidence, particularly the assessments of the Veterans Agency Medical Services.

1. The claim succeeded. The reasons for both Tribunal decisions were wholly inadequate. Under rule 18 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales) Rules 1980, the Tribunal was required to indicate its reasons.
2. The guidance in English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409 applied. Reasons may be brief, but must identify the matters critical to the decision and explain how vital issues were resolved.
3. In the first decision, the Tribunal reduced the assessment substantially below the detailed VAMS assessment without explaining why it rejected the medical opinion, whether it disagreed with individual findings, or whether it relied on the expertise of its medical member. Article 9(2)(c) of the 1983 Order also required a composite assessment by reference to the combined effect of the injuries.
4. In the second decision, the Tribunal did not explain how it dealt with the physical disablement, why it rejected or accepted any depressive condition, or why it adopted a composite assessment of 6 to 14 per cent when VAMS had assessed the physical and mental conditions separately at that level. The reasons did not engage adequately with the medical evidence or the earlier assessment.
5. The inadequate reasoning meant that the decisions were irrational for judicial review purposes. The court did not decide that the substantive outcomes were ones which no rational tribunal could reach. Both matters were therefore to be reconsidered by a new Tribunal, which was required to give reasoned decisions.
6. Costs were refused against the Tribunal. Applying R (Davies) v Birmingham Deputy Coroner [2004] EWCA Civ 207, this was not an exceptional case involving flagrant improper behaviour or an unreasonable failure to sign a consent order. Publicly funded costs were allowed subject to filing the required certificate.

• Pensions Appeal Tribunal: On 18 March 2005, reduced the claimant's assessment from 70 per cent to 40 per cent and upheld an assessment of 6 to 14 per cent for the earlier period.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission for judicial review was granted on 6 October 2005. The claim was allowed on the ground of inadequate reasoning, and the matters were to be reconsidered by a new Tribunal.