I ought to know this but...

Had an appeal this morning for DLA and the disbility member was the same one that heard my client's case back in January. I challenged his presence but the tribunal's position was that since today's appeal was regarding a different claim (in fact a refusal to supersede the January decision ogo a change of circumstances) my challenge was invalid.

I am not so sure. I think the member already had an opinion about my client following her appeal in January and today's appeal should have been postponed until a totally new panel could be selected.

Am I right? If so, could someone please point me towards the law?

I don't know about the law (now there's an admission!) but I dealt with a similar situation a few months ago. Scenario - cl in receipt HRM/MRC reduced on renewal to LRM only. Appeals but appeal lost - tribunal confirms LRM only. Cl very upset by appeal hearing (no representative at time), felt tribunal made a no. of insulting remarks in statement of reasons. Supersession claim made. Refused - still LRM only. Appeal made.

We get involved & make interlocutory application for appeal to be heard by different tribunal members. Refused and actually appeal listed before exactly same tribunal because district chair felt that they were in best position to judge whether there actually had been a change of circs to justify a supersession in cl favour.

In the end this was all academic - we managed to get the decision revised (we had very strong medical evidence) in cl favour just before the hearing - HRM + MRC indefinitely. All's well that ends well.

The district chair asked for submissions re-Lochbail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd (2000) QB451 (referred to in commentary to Vol III, para 1.390, page 235) - around issue of bias. In my cl case I didn't think bias was made out.

I hope this is helpful.

Matthew

That is helpful, Matthew. Thanks very much.

CC