Social Security Case Law - Winter 2024

Headnote

The Upper Tribunal found that it was unfair that the Tribunal proceeded on papers when it was not apparent that the appellant had consented to it. It was also unfair to do so on the basis of documentary evidence that had only been asserted by the Secretary of State and not disclosed to the Tribunal or appellant.

Case Overview

In this decision at the Upper Tribunal, Judge Stout highlighted the principle that both sides have the right to be heard and should have an opportunity to make representations on issues that might weight against them. In this case the Upper Tribunal found that it was unfair that the Tribunal proceeded on papers when it was not apparent that the appellant had consented to it. It was also unfair to do so on the basis of documentary evidence that had only been asserted by the Secretary of State and not disclosed to the Tribunal or appellant. The issues in this case looked at evidence which identified whether the appellant had indefinite leave to remain and thus had a condition of ‘no recourse to public funds’ making them ineligible for an award of Personal Independence Payment. The First-tier Tribunal commented that there could be ‘no other outcome’ but to accept the statement from the Home Office as correct in regards the appellant’s immigration status, despite it being contrary to evidence provided by the appellant themselves. The Upper Tribunal noted that this approach was unreasonable and unlawful, especially in light of their failure to deal with the appellant’s own evidence that provided proof of their immigration status.