KK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2023] UKUT 151 (AAC)
GT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
6 March 2023
[2023] UKUT 58 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A man appealed a decision about when his disability payments should start. The judge who heard the appeal said the first judge wrongly asked another judge for advice, which isn't allowed. So, the case will be heard again by a different judge.
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.