header-logo header-logo

16 August 2007
Issue: 7286 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

SOCIAL SECURITY LAW

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Morina [2007] EWCA Civ 749, [2007] All ER (D) 353 (Jul)

The central point of law to be determined was whether a social security commissioner has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a legally qualified panel member (LQPM) who has refused to extend time or who has struck out a proposed appeal for want of jurisdiction.

It was held that the Social Security Act 1998 contemplates that some decisions of the social security appeal tribunal may be made by a single, legally qualified, member. It follows that a decision of a LQPM sitting alone is to be regarded as a decision of the appeal tribunal for the purpose of determining whether the commissioner has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision.

Where a commissioner refuses leave to appeal against a substantive tribunal decision, his refusal is susceptible to judicial review.Moreover, if a decision of the LQPM is unappealable to the commissioners, it is susceptible to judicial review.

Issue: 7286 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll