Secretary of State for Defence v The Pensions Appeal Tribunal

Secretary of State for Defence v The Pensions Appeal Tribunal

Strict compliance with section 9 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 is not required for time to appeal to begin to run; substantial compliance suffices if the claimant is effectively informed of the right and time limit to appeal. Failure to comply with section 9 may justify extension of time under the Late Appeal Regulations, but the Tribunal has no power to admit appeals outside the statutory time limits. The transitional provisions introducing new time limits for pre-2001 decisions are effective without individual notification. Article 6 ECHR does not require more flexible time limits than those provided by statute.

Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Defence; Defendant: The Pensions Appeal Tribunal; Interested Party: Kathryn Lockyer-Evis; Interested Party: Joanne Clements; Interested Party: Russell Denis Hoggart; Interested Party: Gary Bullivant; Interested Party: Paul Hudson; Interested Party: Ralph Stratford; Interested Party: Douglas Powell; Interested Party: Richard Gildea
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications for judicial review allowed; Tribunal decisions quashed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Time Limits for Appeal, War Pensions, Tribunal Procedure, Legitimate Expectation, Human Rights (article 6)
Administrative Law Pensions Law Statutory Interpretation Time Limits for Appeal War Pensions Tribunal Procedure Legitimate Expectation Human Rights (article 6)

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Defence

Claimant

The Pensions Appeal Tribunal

Defendant

Kathryn Lockyer-Evis

Interested Party

Joanne Clements

Interested Party

Russell Denis Hoggart

Interested Party

Gary Bullivant

Interested Party

Paul Hudson

Interested Party

Ralph Stratford

Interested Party

Douglas Powell

Interested Party

Richard Gildea

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the requirements of section 9 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 regarding notification of appeal rights?
  2. 2 Is strict compliance with section 9 a pre-requisite for the commencement of the time limit for appeal?
  3. 3 What are the consequences of failure to comply with section 9?

Ratio Decidendi

Strict compliance with section 9 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 is not required for time to appeal to begin to run; substantial compliance suffices if the claimant is effectively informed of the right and time limit to appeal. Failure to comply with section 9 may justify extension of time under the Late Appeal Regulations, but the Tribunal has no power to admit appeals outside the statutory time limits. The transitional provisions introducing new time limits for pre-2001 decisions are effective without individual notification. Article 6 ECHR does not require more flexible time limits than those provided by statute.

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review allowed; Tribunal decisions quashed.

Orders

  • Tribunal decisions in the cases of Stratford, Hoggart, Gildea, Bullivant, Powell, Lockyer-Evis, and Hudson are quashed.
  • Where the secondary time limit for appeal has not expired, matters are remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the law as stated in this judgment.