Key Facts
- •GS appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision dismissing their Universal Credit appeal.
- •GS's wife gave oral evidence at the FTT hearing.
- •The FTT decision did not mention GS's wife's evidence.
- •The FTT judge later, when considering permission to appeal, provided reasons that included assessment of the wife's evidence.
- •The FTT made seemingly inconsistent findings regarding GS's ability to work as a carpet fitter at different times.
Legal Principles
A decision-maker who gives one set of reasons cannot, when challenged, come up with another set (Bancoult principle).
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2007] EWCA Civ 498
Tribunals must make findings of fact on all relevant evidence presented.
Implied from the Upper Tribunal's decision
The Upper Tribunal can set aside a FTT decision and remit it for reconsideration if there is an error of law.
Sections 12(2)(a) and 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
The FTT must only consider circumstances up to the date of the Secretary of State’s decision (section 12(8)(b), Social Security Act 1998).
section 12(8)(b), Social Security Act 1998
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The FTT erred in law by failing to address GS's wife's oral evidence in its decision and by providing inconsistent findings. The later reasons provided by the judge regarding the wife's evidence were considered impermissible new reasons under the Bancoult principle.
The FTT's decision was set aside.
Error of law.
The case was remitted to the FTT for reconsideration.
To address the errors of law identified by the Upper Tribunal.