SSWP v SS (DLA) (2010) UKUT 384 (AAC): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "''The decision under challenge was stated to have been made unanimously when in fact it was made by majority. (1) There is no obligation on the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitl...") |
m (Text replacement - "{{bailii|" to "{{#bailii:") |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
{{bailii | {{#bailii:(2010) UKUT 384 (AAC)|no}} | ||
[http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3106 Transcript on Tribunals Service website] | [http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3106 Transcript on Tribunals Service website] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:46, 30 October 2016
The decision under challenge was stated to have been made unanimously when in fact it was made by majority. (1) There is no obligation on the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) to state whether a decision is made by a majority or is unanimous; however, any statement given must be accurate. (2) If the decision notice accurately records that the decision was by a majority then any statement of reasons must contain at least a brief statement of the reasons for the dissent of the minority member. (3) An inaccurate statement that a decision is unanimous amounts to an error of law. (4) The decision was therefore set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.
Citations
File no CDLA 892 2010
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: