Wood v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 31 Jan 2003

The appellant suffered cerebral palsy. Following a review, he was awarded mobility allowance, and then later the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance for life. He applied for the care element also. The respondent refused the care allowance, but also then superseded and cancelled the mobility element.
Held: There had to be a change in his circumstances first as to his mobility, to allow any decision to supersede the earlier one. The question arose as to how an appeal against a decision of the respondent was to fit within the statutory scheme. No consistent meaning can be given to the word ‘superseding’ throughout the relevant provisions of the Act and its regulations. ‘a decision superseding’ in section 12(9) means no more than a ‘decision taken pursuant to the power to supersede’ The court preferred to regard ‘a decision superseding’ as an error for ‘a decision taken pursuant to the power to supersede’.
Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Rix Lady Justice Arden
Times 11-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 53
Bailii
Social Security Act 1998 10 12
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Social Security Commissioner, Ex Parte Chamberlain QBD 7-Jul-2000
On an application to review an earlier incapacity benefit decision, the adjudicating officer or tribunal must first decide if a material change of circumstances existed since the decision, or whether the decision was founded upon some mistake. Only . .
CitedCooke v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 25-Apr-2001
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.178887