Hodder v Pensions Appeal Tribunal

Reasons given by a specialist tribunal need not be elaborate, but they must explain the basis of the decision sufficiently for the participants to understand why they won or lost and must address the principal issues. Where the reasoning leaves genuinely competing interpretations of the tribunal’s approach, and does not explain a significant departure from the evidence, the decision is liable to be quashed for insufficiency of reasons. On remission, the tribunal must identify the relevant medical conditions, assess the overall disability where necessary, and explain what proportion is attributable to the service-related condition.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal dated 3 April 2007. The Tribunal had increased his assessment for service-related post-traumatic stress disorder from 20% to 30% after the claimant withdrew his entitlement appeal concerning depressive disorder and personality disorder. The claimant argued that the decision was irrational or inadequately reasoned.

The central issue was whether the Tribunal had assessed disability on the basis that PTSD was the claimant’s only psychiatric condition, or on the basis that other conditions remained but only the PTSD-related proportion was compensable.

1. The application succeeded. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, the Tribunal’s decision of 3 April 2007 was quashed, and the assessment appeal was remitted for reconsideration.
2. The Tribunal’s reasons were inadequate. Its decision could be read in two materially different ways: either it treated all the claimant’s psychiatric difficulties as attributable to service but assessed the resulting disability at 30%, or it accepted that only PTSD was relevant and increased the assessment because PTSD caused a greater proportion of the difficulties than previously recognised. The reasons did not identify which approach had been adopted.
3. Reasons need not be elaborate. They must nevertheless enable participants to understand why they won or lost and must deal, however shortly, with the principal issues. If the Tribunal had adopted the first approach, it needed to explain why the assessment was substantially below the medical evidence suggesting a higher level of overall disability. If it had adopted the second, that needed to be made clear.
4. The claimant’s entitlement appeal concerning depressive disorder and personality disorder had been withdrawn and struck out. That decision had not been challenged and therefore had to be respected. It was too late for it practically to be reopened through the present proceedings.
5. On reconsideration, the Tribunal must first decide whether PTSD is the claimant’s only psychiatric condition. If it is, it must assess the disability caused by PTSD. If other conditions remain in play, it must assess the overall psychiatric disability and then determine how much of that global level is attributable to PTSD. Its reasons should briefly explain the approach taken.
6. The court did not need to decide whether the President’s interpretation of the withdrawal rule was correct, or whether every part of the rule should be applied literally. The same constitution could reconsider the matter, since its members were familiar with the extensive material.

• Pensions Appeal Tribunal: On 3 April 2007, increased the PTSD disablement assessment from 20% to 30% and struck out the claimant’s entitlement appeals concerning depressive disorder and personality disorder.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The decision was quashed for insufficiency of reasons. The assessment appeal was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.