RH-v-Department for Social Development (II)

�Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the accident on 4/6/70 was not an industrial accident?�

5.���� On 2 December 2011 the appeal was received in the Office of the Social Security Commissioners and Child Support Commissioners (OSSC). �On 25 January 2012 written observations on the appeal were sought from Decision Making Services (DMS) and these were received on 9 February 2012. �In these written observations, Mr Kirk, for DMS, opposed the appeal on the grounds submitted by the appellant. �Written observations on the appeal were shared with the appellant on 25 February 2012.

6.���� On 19 April 2012 I directed an oral hearing of the appeal. �The oral hearing took place on 21 June 2012. �The appellant was present and represented himself to the highest standard. �The Department was represented by Mr Kirk. �Gratitude is extended to the appellant and Mr Kirk for their constructive observations, comments and suggestions.

7.���� The appeal was then �stayed� as the issues arising in this appeal were also under consideration in another appeal which was before the Social Security Commissioners. �For unavoidable reasons the other appeal has taken some considerable time to resolve resulting in a delay in the promulgation of this decision.

�There was not an industrial accident because the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the claimant�s employment.