Moxon v Minister of Pensions
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1945 |
| Year | 1945 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Pensions - Pensions appeal tribunal - Appeal from decision of Minister - Evidence before quasi-judicial tribunal - “Statement of the case,” containing reasons of Minister for his decision - Information given by medical member of tribunal to his colleagues -
The disease of schizophrenia, which led to the discharge of a soldier as medically unfit during war service, was not noted in a medical report made on him at the commencement of his war service. By art. 4 (3.) of the Royal Warrant, therefore, he was entitled to a certificate that his disablement was due to disease which was attributable to his war service, or existed before, or arose during, war service and was and remained aggravated thereby, unless the evidence showed that these conditions were not fulfilled, the onus of proving which, by art. 4 (2.), lay on the Minister of Pensions. The Minister rejected the soldier's claim and he appealed to a pensions appeal tribunal. By r. 5 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales) Rules, 1943, the “statement of the case,” which is sent by the Minister to the appellant and the tribunal, must set forth (a) the relevant facts relating to the appellant's case, as known, to the Minister, including the medical history of the appellant and (b) the Minister's reasons for making the decision against which the appeal is brought. The tribunal was advised by its medical member that the reasons set out by the Minister in “the statement of the case” were, in his opinion, correct; that in his experience the disorder of schizophrenia was no more prevalent amongst service personnel than amongst civilians; and that there were no conditions in the service of the appellant on the East coast of England, in the Royal Artillery, manning a gun in an anti-aircraft unit and doing duty during air raids, which would render probable the contention that his service conditions caused or aggravated his disability. The tribunal dismissed the appeal. On a case stated, it was found that the tribunal's decision as based either on their acceptance of the Minister's reasons for his decision as evidence, coupled with their medical member's advice thereon or on the advice of their medical member given on the undisputed facts as set out in the first part of “the statement of the case” and, further, that unless one or other of those bases for their decision could be justified, the remaining material in the case was insufficient to discharge the onus which lay on the Minister:—
Held, that, although the tribunal was entitled to receive the relevant facts set out in “the statement of the case” as prima facie evidence of the correctness of the facts so stated, they were not entitled to receive that part of “the statement” which consisted of the Minister's reasons for his decision, being, in effect, the judgment under appeal, as evidence of the correctness of any relevant facts or matters of expert opinion contained therein. Moreover, evidence adduced before either judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals should consist of oral statements or documents communicated to both parties before the tribunal arrives at a decision. Information communicated by the medical member to his colleagues on a pension appeal tribunal during their deliberations did not fulfil that requirement.
CASE stated by a chairman of a pensions appeal tribunal under s. 6 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943.
The following facts were found by the tribunal on evidence the sufficiency of which was not in dispute. The appellant, Reginald Charles Moxon, was called up on November 11, 1940, and placed in grade 2. Eleven days later, he was placed in category B. 1. He served as a gunner in the Royal Artillery until his discharge on June 8, 1943. From December 12, 1940, to February 2, 1942, he served with an anti-aircraft unit on the East coast and did duty during air raids. On February 9, 1943, he was admitted to hospital and diagnosed as suffering from simple schizophrenia. The disability on account of which he was discharged on June 8, 1943, was schizophrenia, which was not noted on his medical examination on enlistment. Before joining the army he had not been absent from work except for minor ailments. Apart from his period o service on the East coast there were no other conditions causing strain to the appellant, mental or otherwise.
With regard to his service on the East coast the appellant had supported his claim by a written statement in which he said: “The whole reason for my present menta debil ty and instability is the nervous effect o my experiences during my army service. Previous to my army service I had not experienced any cause for anxiety or worry such as would lead to mental debility and instability which now disables me from work; and previous to such army service I ed a normal healthy and active life. For one period of my army service I was stationed on the East coast and there for some considerable time suffered considerable strain by reason of the duties which were necessary during air raid attacks. For some weeks my unit, a heavy anti-aircraft unit, was on duty day and night with very little rest and this subjected me to physical and mental strain such as I had never experienced or had to contemplate in civilian life.” This statement was forwarded to the officer under whom the appellant had served on the East coast and he was asked whether he could confirm it. His reply was as follows: “In so far as he would never experience the same in civilian life, most certainly. As to the strain caused, it is impossible to say. As an ordinary gun number he would man during air raids and when this manning a gun at night robbed a man of his sleep he would make it up during the day. There was no undue period of successive air raids which would call for strain whilst he was under my command.” No oral evidence was given before he tribunal, nor was the appellant present. He was represented by counsel. All the above facts were found by the tribunal from the “statement of the case,” or documents submitted therewith, prepared by the Minister under r. 5 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales) Rules, 1943F1, and sent by him to the Pensions Appeal Office, after copies had been supplied to the appellant. The appellant put in an “answer” to the “statement of the case” in these terms: “(a) The facts in the ‘statement of the case’ which I dispute are as follows: I dispute the statement of the commanding officer of my unit that there was any opportunity to make up lost sleep during the day and I say that I was subjected to undue strain during the period mentioned in my ‘notice of appeal’.”
The reasons for the Minister's decision as set out in his “statement of the case” were as follows:—
“The appellant was Grade 2 on examination for enlistment in August, 1940. He joined for duty in November, 1940...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v PG Wellfair Ltd
...is wrong. Such is the way in which we dealt in the pensions cases when a medical expert was himself a member of the tribunal, see Moxon v. Minister of Pensions (1945) King's Bench 490 and Starr v. Minister of Pensions (1946) King's Bench at pages 18I am afraid that the arbitrator fell into......
-
Alphapoint Shipping Ltd v Rotem Amfert Negev Ltd
...is wrong. Such is the way in which we dealt in the pensions cases when a medical expert was himself a member of the tribunal, see Moxon v. Minister of Pensions, [1945] K.B. 490 and Starr v. Minister of Pensions, [1946] K.B. 345 at pp. 353–354. I am afraid that the arbitrator fell into err......
-
Brown and Others v Minister of Pensions
...set out in that paragraph are not fulfilled." 2 Mitchell v. Minister of PensionsSC, 1945 S. C. 131;Moxon v. The Minister of PensionsELR, [1945] K. B. 490;Starr v. The Minister of PensionsELR, [1946] 1 K. B. 345;Irving v. Minister of PensionsSC, 1945 S. C. 21,Taylor v. Minister of Pensions, ......
- Dagg v Lovett