2,734
edits
Difference between revisions of "Social Security Tribunal Overview (8:XIII)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Social Security Tribunal Overview (8:XIII) (view source)
Revision as of 21:17, 13 September 2022
, 21:17, 13 September 2022→1. Discretionary Decisions
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Discretionary decisions such as the Commission’s refusal to extend time, or its decision regarding the length of disqualification, can only be reversed if it is decided that the original decision: | Discretionary decisions such as the Commission’s refusal to extend time, or its decision regarding the length of disqualification, can only be reversed if it is decided that the original decision: | ||
a) ignored or failed to consider a relevant factor, including something the Commission was unaware of, such as health problems or other mitigation; | :a) ignored or failed to consider a relevant factor, including something the Commission was unaware of, such as health problems or other mitigation; | ||
b) acted on an irrelevant factor; | :b) acted on an irrelevant factor; | ||
c) committed a jurisdictional error; or | :c) committed a jurisdictional error; or | ||
d) acted against the principles of natural justice, such as acting with bias or bad faith. | :d) acted against the principles of natural justice, such as acting with bias or bad faith. | ||
The issue is whether the Commission’s exercise of discretion in the original decision was reasonable. However, where the Commission has failed to consider relevant evidence, or where there is new evidence presented for the first time by the claimant, the reviewer can exercise remedial authority by making the decision that should have been made. It is rarely difficult in a deserving case to show that the Commission has disregarded some relevant fact. | The issue is whether the Commission’s exercise of discretion in the original decision was reasonable. However, where the Commission has failed to consider relevant evidence, or where there is new evidence presented for the first time by the claimant, the reviewer can exercise remedial authority by making the decision that should have been made. It is rarely difficult in a deserving case to show that the Commission has disregarded some relevant fact. | ||
