Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(A)1/06
File Number:	CA 2034 2004
Appellant:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Batty [2005] EWCA Civ 1746
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge D. Williams
Date Of Decision:	13/12/2005
Date Added:	04/01/2005
Main Category:	DLA, AA: personal care
Main Subcategory:	attention: daytime
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Attention in connection with bodily functions – attention in connection with drinking – whether bringing drinks to claimant counts The claimant was seriously disabled by arthritis in her back and knees and her mobility was severely restricted. She needed drinks to be brought to her during the day but could drink unaided. She also had attention needs in the morning and evening. Her claim for attendance allowance was refused by the Secretary of State and, on appeal, by a tribunal, on the ground that her need for attention in connection with her bodily functions was insufficient to meet the condition of “frequent … throughout the day” set out in section 64(2)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Both the Secretary of State and the tribunal took the view that the need for drinks to be brought to her could not be counted as attention in connection with the bodily function of drinking. The Commissioner allowed her appeal, finding that the tribunal had inadequately reasoned its decision on the facts and holding that the bringing of drinks to her could be counted as attention in connection with drinking and was reasonably required on a number of occasions throughout each day. He found that her total attention needs thus met the statutory definition. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the question of what in law constituted attention in connection with bodily functions for the purposes of section 64(2)(a) was a question of law for the court to decide, to be distinguished from questions of fact involving exercise of judgment, such as whether such attention was required frequently, on which a Commissioner’s decision could be overturned only if perverse (Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] UKHL 44, [2003] 1 WLR 1929 (R(DLA) 7/03), Mallinson v Secretary of State for Social Security [1994] 1 WLR 630 (R(A) 3/94 considered) (paragraph 8); 2. it was clear from the relevant authorities that the phrase “requires from another person … frequent attention in connection with his bodily functions” is to be read as a whole and that the words “attention” and “functions” denote a requirement of a close and intimate nature created by the disability beyond the normal run of domestic assistance (R v National Insurance Commissioner ex parte Secretary of State for Social Services [1981] 1 WLR 1017 (Packer’s case), Woodling v Secretary of State for Social Services [1984] 1 WLR 348 (R(A) 2/80), Mallinson v Secretary of State for Social Security [1994] 1 WLR 630 (R(A) 3/94), Cockburn v Chief Adjudication Officer [1997] 1 WLR 799 (R(A) 2/98) followed) (paragraph 17); 3. assistance with carrying drinks to a person has none of the characteristics of service of a close and intimate character and is not capable of constituting “attention” (paragraphs 18 and 23). The Court remitted the case to a differently constituted appeal tribunal for the questions of fact to be considered again.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(A) 1 06 bv.doc