Charlton v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Regulation 27(b) of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995 ("the 1995 Regulations"), which identifies when a benefit claimant may be treated as incapable of work due to a substantial risk to health if found capable of work. The appellant, a 34-year-old suffering from alcohol dependency syndrome, applied for Incapacity Benefit based on incapacity from 25 July 2005. Having never worked, the appellant did not have sufficient National Insurance contributions to qualify for Incapacity Benefit. Initially treated as incapable of work pending a Personal Capability Assessment, the appellant scored below the threshold necessary for incapacity under that assessment.

An approved doctor examined the appellant and found no physical limitations and awarded low mental health points, concluding no substantial risk to health if the appellant were found capable of work. The decision-maker denied entitlement to incapacity credits. The appellant appealed to a Tribunal which increased the points awarded but still found no substantial risk. The appellant then appealed with permission to Social Security Commissioner Dr Williams, who found the Tribunal erred in providing inadequate reasons and concluded that the appellant suffered from a specific disease (alcohol dependency syndrome).

The Commissioner further held that to satisfy Regulation 27(b), a substantial risk must be shown to arise as a consequence of the claimant being found capable of work, requiring a causative link between the work and the risk. Applying this, the Commissioner found the appellant capable of straightforward, unskilled work without substantial risk to himself or others. The appellant challenges this interpretation and the approach to identifying the type of work relevant to the risk assessment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. How should Regulation 27(b) of the 1995 Regulations be interpreted in assessing whether a claimant may be treated as incapable of work due to a substantial risk to health if found capable of work?
2. What is the proper approach to identifying the nature of work and workplace for the purposes of assessing risk under Regulation 27(b)?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contends that it is sufficient to demonstrate a substantial risk to his or another's safety arising from his medical condition in any setting, including domestic, not limited to risks specifically connected to work or the workplace.
• The appellant argues that the decision-maker should identify "actual positions of employment," focusing on the specific job duties, nature, and location to properly assess risk.
• The appellant supports an approach requiring consideration of hypothetical Jobseeker's Agreements as a guide to the type of work relevant for risk assessment.

Commissioner's and Secretary of State's Arguments

• The Commissioner interpreted Regulation 27(b) as requiring a causative link between the claimant's capability to work and a substantial risk to health arising specifically from the work or workplace.
• The Commissioner held that it is necessary to assess risk in the context of the range or type of work the claimant is capable of performing, not to speculate on hypothetical specific jobs or Jobseeker's Agreements.
• The Secretary of State's position aligns with the Commissioner’s view, emphasizing a practical and fair approach to assessing risk without requiring undue particularity regarding employment positions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed Regulation 27(b) within the statutory framework governing incapacity assessments, emphasizing that it applies only after a claimant has failed the own occupation test and the Personal Capability Assessment. The regulation provides an additional route to incapacity based on substantial risk to health arising if the claimant were found capable of work.

The court agreed with the Commissioner that a causative link must exist between the claimant’s capability to work and the substantial risk to health. Risks unrelated to the claimant being found capable of work do not satisfy Regulation 27(b). The risk assessment must be made in the context of the type or range of work the claimant could perform, not on hypothetical or overly specific job roles.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument requiring detailed identification of specific employment positions or hypothetical Jobseeker’s Agreements, finding such an approach impractical and unsupported by the regulation's wording or purpose. Instead, the decision-maker must assess the claimant’s background, experience, and condition to determine an appropriate range of work for risk evaluation.

The court found that the Commissioner’s factual findings—that the appellant could perform straightforward, unskilled work without substantial risk to himself or others—were reasonable and not challengeable on appeal. The court noted that the regulation aims to provide a fair and effective system for assessing entitlement without imposing unrealistic evidentiary burdens on decision-makers.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The holding affirms that Regulation 27(b) requires a substantial risk to health linked causally to the claimant being found capable of work, assessed in the context of the range of work the claimant could perform. The decision-maker is not required to identify specific job roles or hypothetical employment agreements but must make a reasoned evaluation based on the claimant’s circumstances and medical evidence.

This decision confirms the practical and purposive interpretation of Regulation 27(b) within the statutory incapacity benefit scheme. It underscores the need for a balanced approach that protects claimants’ health while avoiding undue evidentiary demands that would frustrate the regulatory objectives. No new precedent beyond this interpretative clarification was established.