Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Inquisitorial v Adversarial
I seem to vaguely remember that Soc. Sec. law was defined as inquisitorial in a commissioners decision does this ring any bells?
Its axiomatic that tribunal proceedings in social security (and tribunal proceedings generally to a greater or lesser extent) are more inquisitorial than adversarial. This has been referred to in more cases than can be counted. A quick case law search for “inquisitorial” on rightsnet, for instance, has 64 results:
To interpret your question a little more broadly, perhaps you are remembering the decision in Kerr v DSD [2004] UKHL 23 which deals with what Lady Hale describes as the ‘co-operative process’ which is supposed to be used in investigating and deciding benefit entitlement. This is often used to support arguments that the DWP ought in a given case to have accessed information available to them to resolve some factual point, rather than insisting that the claimant provides evidence which they may not have access to.
Are you thinking of Kerr (AP) (Respondent) v. Department for Social Development (Appellants) (Northern Ireland) perhaps?
14. But it can at least be said that a claimant under section 134(1)(a) of the Benefits Act is not in the same position as a litigant. His position is similar to that described by Diplock J in R v Medical Appeal Tribunal (North Midland Region), Ex p Hubble [1958] 2 QB 228, 240. The claim to benefit in that case was a claim to receive money out of insurance funds fed by contributions from all employers, insured persons and the Exchequer. The procedure for determining whether the claimant is entitled to a disability benefit was said to be more like an inquest than an action. The social fund with which we are concerned in this case is, of course, non-contributory. It is maintained out of funds paid into it by the department. The claimant does not have the same rights as an insured person. Nevertheless the position of the department is not to be regarded as adverse to that of the claimant. In this case too the process is inquisitorial, not adversarial.
There are various other UT judgments that make the same point I think.
Ha, snap with Elliot but he beat me to it…..