Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(DLA)5/06
File Number:	CSDLA 1019 1999
Appellant:	Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] UKHL 2
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Three-Judge Panel / Tribunal of Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	09/11/2005
Date Added:	28/03/2002
Main Category:	Human rights law
Main Subcategory:	application of Human Rights Act
Secondary Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Secondary Subcategory:	fair hearing
Notes:	Tribunal practice - natural justice - apparent bias - membership of appeal tribunal including doctor who also acted as an examining medical practitioner for the Benefits Agency - whether breach of principles of independence and impartiality - test of fair-minded and informed observer The appeal tribunal had upheld the decision of the Secretary of State that the claimant was not entitled to an award of disability living allowance. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. In the course of submissions to the Commissioner, the claimant raised an objection about the independence of the tribunal having regard to the fact that the medical member of the tribunal also undertook medical reports for the Benefits Agency as an examining medical practitioner (EMP). A Tribunal of Commissioners (W M Walker QC, D J May QC, and J N Wright QC) upheld the appeal. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Session (the Lord President (Cullen), Lord Kirkwood and Lord Weir), which allowed the appeal. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords, which upheld the decision of the Court of Session. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. an appeal to the Commissioner was competent on a question of law only. The issue of the proper constitution of an appeal tribunal and whether it had acted in breach of the principles of natural justice were questions of law rather than fact. Accordingly, the Tribunal of Commissioners had had jurisdiction to examine it and the question at the stage of any further appeal to the Court of Session and to the House of Lords was also whether the decision of the appeal tribunal was erroneous in point of law (Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35 applied) (paragraphs 4 to 7); 2. the common law position in regard to the reasonable apprehension of bias had been greatly simplified since the case was before the Tribunal of Commissioners and the possibility of a conflict between the English and the Scottish tests had been removed by the House of Lords in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 (paragraph 3); 3. the rationale for disqualification by reason of apparent bias was to ensure that the basic rules of fairness were adhered to and to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the adjudication system and the administration of justice (paragraph 23); 4. the critical issue was whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude, having considered the facts, that there was a real possibility that a doctor would not evaluate medical reports prepared by other doctors objectively and impartially, it being assumed that such an observer would have access to all such facts as are capable of being known by the public and that the observer was neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious and could distinguish between what is relevant and what is irrelevant and give appropriate weight to relevant facts (paragraph 17); 5. a doctor exercising the roles of an EMP and of a medically qualified member of the appeal tribunal is called upon to exercise independent professional judgment drawing upon medical knowledge and experience. The fair-minded observer would conclude that the doctor’s knowledge and experience would cut both ways in identifying not only the strengths but also the weaknesses of the reports of EMPs (R (PD) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal [2004] EWCA Civ 311 applied) (paragraph 21); 6. on the facts of the case, there was no basis for a finding that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Decision(s) to Download:	R(DLA) 5_06 bv.doc