Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This appeal by the adjudication officer was the subject of an oral hearing before me on 26 November 1996 at which the claimant was present, but unrepresented. She addressed me on the issues in this appeal. The adjudication officer was represented by Mr J. Heath of the Office of the Solicitor to the Departments of Health and Social Security. I am indebted to the claimant and to Mr Heath for their assistance to me at the hearing.
The tribunal clearly took considerable care with the case. Their record of decision (on form AT3) is completed in exemplary detail. No adverse criticism of the majority on the tribunal is implied in my having set their decision aside, but I do not consider that the reasons given by the majority were correct in law. However, for different reasons, as is explained below, I have come to the same conclusion as the tribunal, namely that on the particular facts of this case the accident arose "in the course of" the claimant's employment.
The original tribunal made the following findings of fact (words in square brackets inserted by me) which were confirmed as correct by the claimant at the hearing before me and which are not disputed by the adjudication officer; -
"1. [The Claimant] is employed by the Benefits Agency...and in July 1995 would have been working in the disablement section.
However, on 11 July 1995 she was off sick, suffering from ulcerative colitis [and had in fact been off sick since 24 May 1995], and was at home.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.