McKee v Secretary Of State For Work & Pensions [2004] EWCA Civ 334 (16 March 2004)

McKee v Secretary Of State For Work & Pensions [2004] EWCA Civ 334 (16 March 2004)

The Commissioner's decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair; the medical evidence supported the finding that Mr McKee could walk 100 yards, which is outside the statutory threshold for the mobility component; delay in the process, even if a violation of Article 6 ECHR, does not provide a remedy at this stage; no legal error by the Commissioner was established.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 334
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Terence McKee; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From a Decision of the Social Security Commissioner
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Disability Living Allowance, Mobility Component, Article 6 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review
Social Security Law Human Rights Law Disability Living Allowance Mobility Component Article 6 ECHR Procedural Fairness Judicial Review

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence McKee

Claimant/applicant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From a Decision of the Social Security Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in the appeal process violated Article 6 ECHR right to a fair trial within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner's decision was irrational or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the medical evidence justified removal of the mobility component

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner's decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair; the medical evidence supported the finding that Mr McKee could walk 100 yards, which is outside the statutory threshold for the mobility component; delay in the process, even if a violation of Article 6 ECHR, does not provide a remedy at this stage; no legal error by the Commissioner was established.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused