R v Attendance Allowance Board, ex parte Moran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1990 |
| Date | 25 January 1990 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Lord Justice Wolff and Mr Justice Pill
Judicial review - court's discretion - tribunal hearing
Although it was not appropriate in the normal way for applications to the Queen's Bench Divisional Court to be made to vary or correct proceedings in an administrative body or tribunal prior to a hearing of that body, there could arise circumstances in which the history of the case did make it appropriate for the court to exercise its jurisdiction to interfere in order to avoid the wasted time and expense of a hearing which, if held as proposed, would be tainted.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held when allowing the application of Mrs Dorothy Moran for judicial review of a forthcoming hearing of the Attendance Allowance Board but making no order, for the board would do its utmost to see that the spirit of the judgment was observed.
Mr Richard Drabble for Mrs Moran; Mr Richard Gordon for the board.
LORD JUSTICE WOOLF said Mrs Moran, a married woman of 60, had in April 1983 made an application for an attendance allowance, under the provisions of section 35(1) of the Social Security Act 1975, on account of an epileptic condition from which she had suffered since the age of 17.
Sometimes, due to no one's fault, cases created difficulty after difficulty resulting in long delays, as here and created exceptional situations; such was this.
The extent of the problem was indicated by the fact that the application had been considered twice by delegated medical practitioners for the board, three times by the board's full ten members, once by a social security commissioner, once by the tribunal of the social security commissioners and once by the Court of Appeal (The Times March 14, 1987). Here it was again.
There was no doubt Mrs Moran was entitled to some attendance allowance and had indeed received some, but what was in dispute was whether she came within the requirements of section 35(1) of the 1975 Act for night-time attendance which, if fulfilled, would require payment of a higher rate.
To qualify under section 35 an applicant had, under subsection (1)(b), to be "…so severely disabled physically or mentally that, at night, he requires from another person … (ii) continual supervision throughout the night in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others".
In December 1984 the delegated medical practitioner for the board in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharples v Halford and Others
...were the subject of 'class' privilege. We were also referred to the case of R v. Commissioner of Police—ex parte Hart-Leverton (The Times, 8th February 1990—a full transcript was available to us). This was a decision of the Divisional Court,…and deals with disciplinary matters which were ag......