Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number: R(M)1/96
File Number: CM 20 1994
Judge/Commissioner: Judge P. L. Howell Q.C.
Date Of Decision: 30/01/1995
Date Added: 25/07/2002
Main Category: Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Main Subcategory: statements of reasons
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes: Tribunal practice - renewal claim - whether reasons adequate The claimant had lost part of his right leg in an accident and had arthritis in his left hip and spine. His renewal claim for mobility allowance in 1992 was rejected on the ground that he was neither unable, nor virtually unable, to walk. The claimant contended that his walking ability had in fact got worse since he was originally awarded mobility allowance in 1991. A disability appeal tribunal confirmed the rejection of his claim. The claimant appealed to a social security Commissioner. Held that: the fact of a previous award does not raise any presumption in the claimantÂ’s favour or result in the need for consistency having to be treated as a separate issue on a renewal claim (para. 14) . However, the requirement for a tribunal to give reasons for its decision means that it is necessary for a tribunal to explain why it is not renewing a previous award unless this is obvious from its findings (see Evans, Kitchen and Others v. Secretary of State, unreported CA, 30 July 1993) [now reported as R(I) 5/94] (para. 15).
Decision(s) to Download: M1_96.doc M1_96.doc