Argenio v The Office of the Social Security & Anor

Argenio v The Office of the Social Security & Anor

There was no arguable point of law arising from the tribunal's decision or the Commissioner's refusal to grant leave to appeal. The applicant's complaints concerned findings of fact and procedural matters that did not amount to legal error. The lower courts were correct to refuse permission to apply for judicial review.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Argenio; Defendant/respondent: The Office of the Social Security & Child Support Commissioners & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Leave to Appeal, Disability Benefits, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Social Security Law Judicial Review Leave to Appeal Disability Benefits Procedural Fairness

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Argenio

Claimant/appellant

The Office of the Social Security & Child Support Commissioners & Anr

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Social Security Commissioner erred in law in refusing leave to appeal from the appeal tribunal's decision
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts erred in refusing permission to apply for judicial review of the Commissioner's refusal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing due to language, disability, or procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable point of law arising from the tribunal's decision or the Commissioner's refusal to grant leave to appeal. The applicant's complaints concerned findings of fact and procedural matters that did not amount to legal error. The lower courts were correct to refuse permission to apply for judicial review.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to apply for judicial review refused
  • Costs order of £400 in favour of the interested party upheld