Lees v Secretary of State for Social Services
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Scarman,Lord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Brightman,Lord Templeman |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1985 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1985] UKHL J0425-4 |
| Date | 25 April 1985 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1985] UKHL J0425-4
House of Lords
Lord Scarman
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Brightman
Lord Templeman
My Lords,
The appellant, Miss Christine Lees, is totally blind. She cannot move out of doors from one place to another without someone to guide her. She seeks a mobility allowance. Mobility allowance is a weekly cash benefit, which is not means-tested and is available for those who because of their physical condition cannot walk. It is payable under section 37A of the Social Security Act 1975 (as inserted by section 22(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975). To qualify for the allowance Miss Lees has to establish that she is suffering from physical disablement such that she is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so. The insurance officer, having referred the medical question arising on her claim to a medical practititioner for report and having received his report, disallowed the claim. She appealed to a medical board who decided that the medical conditions for an award were not met. She then appealed to the medical appeal tribunal. The tribunal confirmed the decision of the board. In the tribunal's view the claimant was not unable to walk or virtually unable to walk.
The tribunal's findings of fact are not appealable (though they may be reviewed in certain circumstances). An appeal from their decision lies only on a question of law: section 112 of the Social Security Act 1975. Miss Lees appealed to the Social Security Commissioner, who dismissed her appeal. With the Commissioner's leave she appealed to the Court of Appeal, which Court (Eveleigh and O'Connor L.JJ.) dismissed her appeal. She now appeals to your Lordships' House with the leave of the House.
The critical question in the appeal is whether Miss Lees is unable, or virtually unable, to walk. I accept her counsel's submission that on given facts this is a question of law. "Walk" is, of course, an ordinary English word: but the task which faces your Lordships is to determine its meaning in the context of section 37A of the Act of 1975 and of the regulations made thereunder. That is a matter of law to be determined by applying the judicial process of statutory interpretation to the section and to the regulations.
Section 37A of the Act of 1975, so far as material, and as amended by section 129 and Schedule 15, para. 64 of the National Health Service Act 1977, is in these terms:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person who satisfies prescribed conditions as to residence or presence in Great Britain shall be entitled to a mobility allowance for any period throughout which he is suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so.
(2) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as suffering from such physical disablement as is mentioned above; but a person qualifies for the allowance only if -
( a) his inability or virtual inability to walk is likely to persist for at least 12 months from the time when a claim for the allowance is received by the Secretary of State; and
( b) during most of that period his condition will be such as permits him from time to time to benefit from enhanced facilities for locomotion.
(3) The weekly rate of a mobility allowance shall be that specified in Schedule 4 to this Act, Part III, paragraph 3A.
(6) Regulations may prescribe cases in which mobility allowance is not to be payable, or is to be payable at a reduced rate, while the person otherwise entitled has the use -
( a) of an invalid carriage or other vehicle provided by the Secretary of State under [paragraph ( a) of section 5(2) and Schedule 2 of the National Health Service Act 1977]; or
( b) of any prescribed description of appliance supplied under the enactments relating to the National Health Service being such an appliance as is primarily designed to afford a means of personal and independent locomotion out of doors."
Subsection (2) confers a legislative power upon the Secretary of State, which, though by no means unprecedented, I continue to find startling. He is empowered by regulation (to be laid, of course, before Parliament) to set a limit to the scope of an enactment. He may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated as suffering from such physical disablement that he is unable, or virtually unable, to walk. The Secretary of State has defined the scope of subsection (1) of the section in the Mobility Allowance Regulations 1975 ( S.I. 1975 No. 1573) laid before Parliament on 30 September 1975 and coming into operation on 1 October 1975. Two of the regulations are of importance in this appeal. Regulation 3, as amended by regulation 2(2) and (3) of the Mobility Allowance Amendment Regulations 1979 ( S.I. 1979 No. 172), prescribes the limitations to be put upon the general language of section 37A(1), and is in these terms:
"(1) A person shall only be treated, for the purposes of section 37A, as suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so, if his physical condition as a whole is such that, without having regard to circumstances peculiar to that person as to place of residence or as to place of, or nature of, employment -
( a) he is unable to walk; or
( b) his ability to walk out of doors is so limited, as regards the distance over which or the speed at which or the length of time for which or the manner in which he can make progress on foot without severe discomfort, that he is Virtually unable to walk; or
( c) the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to his life or would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in his health."
Regulation 13(1) takes the process of statutory interpretation by regulation a stage further: it is in these terms:
"In these regulations any question arising in connection with a claim for or award of allowance - ( a) whether a person is suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so; or ( b) whether such inability or virtual inability to walk is likely to persist for at least 12 months from a specified date; or ( c) for what period, being a period limited by reference either to the person's attaining pensionable age or to a definite earlier date, the person may be expected to continue to be unable, or virtually unable, to walk; or ( d) whether during most of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Secretary of State CSDLA 235 2013
...Pensions [2005] UKHL 37, [2006] 1 AC 173 8. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 9. Lees v Chief Adjudication Officer [1985] AC 930 (HL) 10. Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark (A-23) (1979-80) 1 EHRR 711 Additional materials 11. Social Security (Disability Livin......
-
CDLA 714 1998
...in order to provide some relief from the effect of the decision of the House of Lords in Lees v. Secretary of State for Social Services [1985] 1 AC 930. It was there held that a woman who was blind, who suffered from a marked incapacity for spatial orientation and who could only walk outsid......
-
CDLA 2879 2004
...lower rate of the mobility component was introduced, in order to assist persons such as the blind claimant in Lees v Secretary of State [1985] 1 AC 930 who, although physically able to walk (and therefore, it was held in Lees, not entitled to mobility allowance), require guidance or supervi......
-
Hewitt v. Chief Adjudication Officer CDLA 15997 1996
...the appeals, that: the central focus of the regulation was the ability to move on foot: Lees v. Secretary of State for Social Services [1985] 1 AC 930; 2. (per Simon Brown LJ) the reference to the “ability to walk out of doors” was contained in the regulation because the physical problems o......