Key Facts
- •G.T. appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision regarding the start date of his Personal Independence Payment (PIP) award.
- •The FTT consulted a Duty District Judge (DDJ) before deciding the case.
- •G.T. suffers from meningioma and prostate cancer.
- •The initial claim was made on 22 January 2019.
- •The DWP awarded PIP from 1 December 2019.
- •The FTT revised the start date to 1 September 2019.
Legal Principles
Required period condition for PIP entitlement (3-month retrospective and 9-month prospective periods).
Welfare Reform Act 2012, sections 78, 79; Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, regulations 12, 13, 14.
Composition of Tribunals Practice Statement: Tribunal panel cannot exceed three members.
Senior President’s Practice Statement on Composition of Tribunals in Social Security and Child Support Cases
Judicial independence and natural justice: A tribunal cannot abdicate its decision-making responsibility to a third party.
Common law principles of natural justice
Consultation between judges is acceptable for ensuring consistency, but this should not involve abdicating decision-making responsibility.
Midland Container Logistics Ltd [2020] UKUT 5 (AAC); PD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2021] UKUT 172 (AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The FTT's consultation with the DDJ constituted an error of law and a breach of natural justice.
FTT decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
The FTT improperly delegated its decision-making authority.