Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2010 UKUT 384 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CDLA 892 2010
Appellant:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent:	SS
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge J. Mesher
Date Of Decision:	22/10/2010
Date Added:	01/12/2010
Main Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2011] AACR 24. Tribunal practice – majority decision – decision notice and statement of reasons – whether tribunal obliged to record that decision not unanimous The record of proceedings showed that the First-tier Tribunal had allowed the claimant’s appeal by a majority, as permitted by Article 8 of the First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008. However, the decision notice indicated that the decision was unanimous as the pre-printed word “unanimous” was not struck out. The statement of reasons said nothing about whether the decision had been unanimous or by a majority. There was no requirement in the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 for a tribunal to record in a decision notice or statement of reasons that one of the members dissented or the reasons given by the dissenting member for dissenting, as had been required by the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 before 3 November 2008. On appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the Secretary of State submitted that a statement of reasons is inadequate if it fails to record that information. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. a tribunal within the Social Entitlement Chamber was not obliged to state in the notice of its decision that it had been made by a majority, the change in the terms of the legislation from those in operation for social security and child support cases before 3 November 2008 being compelling, and it was legitimate and not inconsistent with any fundamental principles of natural justice or a fair trial for the judgment to be made that the interests of having a final conclusion on the issues in dispute outweighed the arguments for disclosure of more information. However, that did not prevent a particular tribunal or a Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal or some constituent part of such a Chamber deciding that such information would be given (paragraph 8); 2. if a tribunal has not stated in its decision notice whether the decision is unanimous or by a majority, it cannot be under an obligation when giving a statement of reasons to give that information and to state the reasoning of the minority, as that would undermine the conclusion in the previous holding (paragraph 9); 3. however, if a decision notice accurately records that the decision was by a majority and a statement of reasons is prepared, at least a brief statement of the reasons for the dissent of the minority member should be given there, as it is implicit in the basic principle of enabling the losing party to understand why he or she has lost that there should be some statement of in what respects the minority member would have decided in his or her favour (paragraph 10); 4. an inaccurate statement in a decision notice that the decision was unanimous can be cured or rendered non-material if the subsequent statement of reasons acknowledges the mistake, correctly sets out that the decision was by a majority and gives an adequate statement of the reasons of the minority member, but the statement of reasons in this case did nothing to acknowledge or correct the inaccuracy of the decision notice, and accordingly, the decision involved an error of law (paragraph 11). The judge remitted the case to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing.
Decision(s) to Download:	[2011] AACR 24ws.doc