Trembath v Secretary Of State For Works & Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 1445 (2 October 2002)

Trembath v Secretary Of State For Works & Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 1445 (2 October 2002)

The applicant did not meet the statutory criteria for the lower rate mobility component because, despite her panic attacks, she was able to take advantage of the faculty of walking without guidance or supervision most of the time; the tribunal's application of the law was not sufficiently erroneous to warrant appellate intervention.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1445
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Jeanette Pearl Julie Trembath; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Works & Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal From Social Security Commissioner to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Disability Living Allowance, Mobility Component, Appeals Process, Specialist Tribunal Jurisdiction
Social Security Law Administrative Law Disability Living Allowance Mobility Component Appeals Process Specialist Tribunal Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanette Pearl Julie Trembath

Applicant/claimant

Secretary of State for Works & Pensions

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal From Social Security Commissioner to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant meets the statutory criteria for the lower rate mobility component under section 73(1)(d) of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal applied the correct legal test regarding the need for guidance or supervision
  3. 3 Appropriateness of appellate review by non-specialist courts in specialist tribunal matters

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not meet the statutory criteria for the lower rate mobility component because, despite her panic attacks, she was able to take advantage of the faculty of walking without guidance or supervision most of the time; the tribunal's application of the law was not sufficiently erroneous to warrant appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused