Social Security Case Law - Spring 2025

Headnote

The requirement of procedural fairness meant that it should give an appellant the opportunity to make submissions on whether or not he meets that condition of entitlement – even when they have opted for a paper hearing.

Background

The claimant made an application for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) in January 2020 in respect of an event that he claimed as an industrial accident in July 2018. Following a request for further information form the Department, the appellant referred to a number of difference incidents occurring between October 2016 and September 2019 – each incident was subsequently treated as a separate IIDB claim (nine in total). All of the claims were rejected on the basis that no industrial action had occurred, or that the incident did not lead to loss of faculty after the expiry of 90 days from the date of the accident. The claimant appealed the Departments decisions to the Social Security Tribunal and requested a paper hearing. Without the claimant present the Tribunal considered that the appellant had not satisfied the burden of proof and that there was no causative connection between any workplace incident and the resulting injury or health issue. The appellant has appealed the decision of the Tribunal to Commissioner on the grounds that it had erred in law and misinterpreted the facts.

Legal Issue

The Commissioner had to consider whether the Tribunal erred in law by wrongly interpreting the material facts of the case – in particular the appellant’s submission focused on the factual assertions relating to his treatment by his employers, and that it is evident that his ill health is as a result of his work situation.

Decision

The Commissioner refused six of the nine applications for IIDB, however, allowed the appeal in three of the applications noting the Tribunal had erred in law and remitting the case to be heard by a newly constituted tribunal.

It was noted that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the facts, including the misidentification of an individual and their wrongful distinction of key events/dates.

The Commissioner also noted the support of the Department’s submission that when a Tribunal determines an appeal from a decision that a sufficient loss of faculty had not occurred, it might not be precluded from considering a different condition of entitlement to IIDB. In this case the appellant should have the opportunity to make submissions on whether he meets the conditions of entitlement.  As a result, the appeals were referred to a newly appointed tribunal for determination.

Relevant Legislation

• Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act (NI) 1992, Section 94 & 103
• Social Security (NI) Order 1998, Art. 15(8)(b) & 29

Relevant Case Law

• BM v Department for Communities [2016] NI Com 67
• Brutus v Cozens [1972] UKHL 6
• R(SB)33/85