Back log in appeals causes judges to refuse appeal

District Tribunal Judges or some legally qualified panel members (LQPM) can only strike out appeals if they are frivilous, misconceived, vexatious or there is no right of appeal against the decision in question, as laid down in the regulations.

In all other circumstances an appeal cannot be struck out just because on the balance of probabilities it would be unlikely to succeed. The evidence needs to be fully evaluated with the inclusion of the interested parties by way of an appeal hearing, whether it be an oral hearing or a paper hearing. The appellant has to be warned about any potential negative outcome, and must then decide whether or not to proceed with the appeal?

As I said earlier, if the appellant is not offered a fair hearing it will inevitably at the very least breach the rules of natural justice, but moreover it is likely to breach Article 6(1) of the HRA.

Hi CD,

From my experience of sitting on DLA Tribunals, there is no way in my opinion that a Tribunal Judge or a LQPM would contact Atos to discuss an appeal.

As you rightly say, it would at least be a breach of Article 6 of the HRA, 'Right to a Fair Trial'

However, just like any other Court of Law, discussing the case whilst it's waiting to be heard would be Sub judice

Best wishes.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Sub judice is imposed once a claimant lodges an appeal against the adverse decision.

In that respect, the only effective way that the DWP can revoke the appeal process is if the claimant receives their full award/entitlement. This should be done on the strength of the evidence already available, and under no circumstances should the DWP contact the appellant to elicit further evidence. The main reason is that the appellant could be placed under duress, and inadvertently as it were incriminate themselves, especially if there is no verbatim record of the evidence adduced from the appellant.

I would strongly urge appellants never to discuss any aspect of an appeal with the DWP. The only situation where any discussion should take place (and again I would be very reluctant to do so), is at the reconsideration stage as the rules of sub judice are not (yet) applicable. If the DWP inform the claimant at this point in time that any appeal would be doomed to fail, any further discussion should be terminated immediately, an appeal should be lodged in the normal way, and a formal complaint should be made to the manage of the relevant JCP/BD office. The letter of complaint and any subsequent reply from the DWP should be attached to the GL24 form or sent separately as soon as possible thereafter, and drawn to the attention of the Tribunal Service.

The DWP are not permitted under any circumstances to tell an appellant that an appeal has no prospect of success, for the obvious reason that they are a party to the proceedings.

Regards,

CD

I am attempting to use the Sub Judice rule with regards to their insistence for me to attend an incapacity medical (PCA) whilst awaiting my DLA appeal. My reasoning being that as evidence can possibly be used between both benefits, then an adverse decision for Incapacity Benefit and/or the medical assessment could affect my appeal.. similarly we could inadvertently incriminate ourselves on a related matter.

Although the appeal decision should be made on the strength of the evidence already available, I believe the Tribunal themselves have the powers to request the appellant to have a further medical examination which seems contrary to this..

I don't know how strong this argument is, and am not totally reliant on it, as this is one of many that I have made....