Hill, R (on the application of) v Social Security Commissioner & Anor

Hill, R (on the application of) v Social Security Commissioner & Anor

Permission to apply for judicial review is granted solely on the ground that the Appeal Tribunal, and hence the Commissioner, arguably erred in law by failing to recognise that acceleration of symptoms by two years could entitle Mr Hill to IIDB for the period by which the onset of disability was brought forward. There is no arguable case on the Article 6 ECHR or procedural fairness grounds advanced.

Parties
Claimant: Malcolm Neil Hill; Defendant: The Social Security Commissioner; Interested Party: The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (renewed Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review granted on one ground; refused on all other grounds.
Legal Topics
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, Judicial Review, Article 6 ECHR, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Social Security Law Human Rights Law Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Judicial Review Article 6 ECHR 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Neil Hill

Claimant

The Social Security Commissioner

Defendant

The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (renewed Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Social Security Commissioner erred in law in refusing permission to appeal the decision of the Appeal Tribunal regarding IIDB
  2. 2 Whether the procedure for assessing entitlement to IIDB breached Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial)
  3. 3 Whether the absence of legal representation and retention of benefit pending appeal breached procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to apply for judicial review is granted solely on the ground that the Appeal Tribunal, and hence the Commissioner, arguably erred in law by failing to recognise that acceleration of symptoms by two years could entitle Mr Hill to IIDB for the period by which the onset of disability was brought forward. There is no arguable case on the Article 6 ECHR or procedural fairness grounds advanced.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review granted on one ground; refused on all other grounds.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination dated 19 May 2008 is granted on the ground of arguable error of law regarding acceleration of symptoms.
  • No order as to costs.