Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(IS)1/09
File Number:	CIS 1599 2007
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. A. L. Bano
Date Of Decision:	30/06/2008
Date Added:	08/07/2008
Main Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Main Subcategory:	fair hearing
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Tribunal practice – fair hearing – whether unfair for tribunal chairman who decided entitlement issue to decide same issue in overpayment appeal In April 2005 an entitlement decision was made, superseding the decision awarding the claimant income support on the ground that he had capital in excess of £8,000. In July 2005 a second decision was made, determining that as a result of the entitlement decision income support had been overpaid and was recoverable because the claimant had failed to disclose the fact that he had capital in excess of £8,000. In November 2005 a tribunal dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the entitlement decision. In March 2006 the claimant appealed against the overpayment decision and, on the direction of a district chairman, the appeal was heard by the chairman who had heard the appeal against the entitlement decision. The claimant challenged the overpayment decision solely on the ground that the entitlement decision had been wrong. The chairman considered that he was bound by his earlier decision on the entitlement issue, but in case he was wrong in that view he conducted a full rehearing of the claimant’s case. That appeal was also dismissed. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. Before the Commissioner it was common ground that (following CIS/1330/2002) the findings of fact in the entitlement decision appeal were not binding in the overpayment decision appeal. The only issue for the Commissioner was therefore whether it was unfair for the same chairman to conduct both hearings. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. (following AMEC Capital Projects Limited v Whitefriars City Estates Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1418, [2005] 1 All ER 723) the mere fact that the tribunal has previously decided the issue is not of itself sufficient to justify a conclusion of apparent bias provided the tribunal approaches the matter with an open mind and gives such reconsideration of the matter as is reasonably necessary for it to be satisfied that its first decision was correct (paragraph 13); 2. in this case the chairman had gone further than was required by AMEC in conducting a complete rehearing of the case and giving reasons for his decision which were based entirely on the evidence given at the second hearing, and there was nothing in the record of proceedings or the claimant’s account of the hearing which would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to doubt the chairman’s impartiality and objectivity (paragraph 14).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(IS) 1-09 bv.doc