Anyone know whether a Commissioner is bound by a decision of the High Court?

According to CPAG page 1199, yes he is, soemtimes anyway. They quote some case law on it. This makes sense because a Commissioner has roughly the status of a Circuit judge (ie county court) and the High Court is higher. In ordinary civil law the High Court is the lowest court whose decisions are binding on other courts.

We are presumably talking about judicial review proceedings as the High Court doesn't get involved in the normal hierarchy of beenfit appeals, which goes straight to the Court of Appeal from Commissioners (like county courts).

It is however important to understand just what the doctrine of precedent implies. The High Court decision needs to have been in the context of of an issue in benefit law actually in dispute in the case. A High Court decision on say beneficial ownership of property in a capital case is probably going to be binding as to the issue of owenrship only, but not on any other benefit-related issues like valuation, deprivation and so on because these are not the sort of thing the High Court has anything to do with.

Sorry this is all a bit vague but without the facts the question is unanswerable at a really simple level (this sort of thing is what lawyers are for and why it takws so long to train them!)

Also see the notes to S14 SSA1998 on page 238 of Vol 3 of the Legislation.

Commissioners are bound by High Court on JR of a Commissioners decision (presumably on things like whether to grant leave, otherwise it would go to CofA) but is not strictly bound in other cases. Would usually follow High Court, may depart from a decision of a single High Court judge, but should follow divisional courts. Tribunals of Commissioners may depart from divisional courts.

I think that at the training Commissioners Bano and Levenson ran for LAG a couple of years ago, one of them said that Commissioners were intended to have the same status as a High Court Judge.

martin,if you tell us what the issue is etc. we might be able to tell you, or at least give you an indication, as to which court rules in your particular scenario...

I though Commissioners have the same status as a district judge

I just googled it and they are paid the same as a circuit judge.

It might be worth you having a look at R(IS) 15/99 which was upheld in the CoA and states:

"19. I have come to the conclusion that decisions on substantive points of social security law made by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction are all to be regarded as being made in a jurisdiction co-ordinate with that of Commissioners and that I should take the same approach to them as would a single judge of the High Court. I consider that I am not bound to follow a decision of a single High Court judge but should do so unless convinced that it is wrong. I should take the same approach to a decision of a judge of the Outer House of the Court of Session. On the other hand, like a judge of the High Court, I would regard myself as bound by a decision of a divisional court (other than, perhaps, in the special circumstances identified in R(SB) 52/83) for much the same reasons that I am bound by a decision of a Tribunal of Commissioners. <...>. Furthermore, I take R(SB) 52/83 as authority for the proposition that a Tribunal of Commissioners would not regard themselves as bound by a decision of a divisional court, in which case a Commissioner in Scotland, faced by what he regarded as an unsatisfactory decision of a divisional court, could take the action that it was suggested in R(U) 4/88 should be taken when a Commissioner is faced with an apparently unsatisfactory decision of a Tribunal of Commissioners and refer the case to the Chief Commissioner so that it might be considered by another Tribunal of Commissioners".

Further CD's on the standing of Commissioners and the more formal constitutional courts can be found on the OSSCSC website at:

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/practice_procedure/judicial_standing.htm