Have been supporting a client with a diffcult medical condition, which for DLA purposes, could be said to be contentious. Substantive part of the case relies on a single unpublished Commissioner's decision. Hearing adjourned twice (once for EMP report - supportive) with third hearing yesterday. The decision was then deferred for postal notification.

Previously, in some adjourned cases, the Judge has directed that the panel members should remain the same until the final hearing. But in this case no such direction was made and the client has now had to repeat his story on 3 diffrent occasions. He finds this humiliating (cannot go onto details here). Our paper submission has remained the same (apart from commenting on EMP report) throughout the three sittings.

It would seem to me that having three differently constituted panels does not lend itself to natural justice in what is a complex case. Cannot find anything specific in tribunal regs and would be interested in other opinions in case we have to challenge a negative decision.

The basic rule is that, in order to ensure no one member of the Tribunal has more experience of the case than any other, on an adjournment if evidence is taken the new Tribunal must be made up of all the same members or none of them. It is the exception rather than the rule in a three-person tribunal to reserve to the same tribunal (it is more common with judge alone).

I suppose that the problem may be the difficulty of reassembling the same three people. Tribunal members like everyone else go on holiday, fall sick, take prolonged periods off for medical treatment or maternity leave, have other work commitments (most of them are part-time), retire and fill in at short notice in an emergency at a venue a long way from which they normally sit. This can lead, I understand, to huge administrative difficulties and even if it can be done the delays may be inordinate.

If no evidence has been taken it is not a problem and you can find yourself back before one or two of the old tribunal and a third who was not there before.

Thanks for that. Yes, I can understand the difficulties of balancing all the different diaries, plus the appellants deciding they have prior engagements at the last moment, of course.

Waiting for statement of reasons now. Won the care argument, but not the mobility one.