GS v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
[2024] UKUT 4 (AAC)
JG v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
18 October 2024
[2024] UKUT 329 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A person appealed a decision cutting their benefits. The first court threw out the appeal without a hearing. Then the court changed its mind. Then it changed its mind *again*. The higher court said the last two changes were wrong, so the original decision is still overturned, and the case needs to be heard properly now.
Key Facts
- •JG appealed a DWP decision imposing a Universal Credit sanction.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) initially dismissed JG's appeal on the papers.
- •The FTT subsequently set aside its own decision under rule 37 of the FTT Rules 2008, then later set aside that 'set aside' decision.
- •JG applied to the Upper Tribunal (UT) for permission to appeal, but the UT refused permission because there was no final FTT decision.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal has discretion whether to hold an oral hearing.
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, rule 34(1)
The test for whether an oral hearing is required is whether fairness demands it considering the facts and importance of the matter.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115 at paragraph 2(i)
The FTT can set aside a decision disposing of proceedings if it's in the interests of justice and a specified condition in rule 37(2) is met.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (SEC) Rules 2008, rule 37
The FTT has case management powers to give directions, including amending, suspending, or setting aside earlier directions.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (SEC) Rules 2008, rule 5(2)
The FTT's powers are derived from statute; rule 37's power to set aside decisions is limited to the circumstances listed in rule 37(2).
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Schedule 5, paragraph 15
Outcomes
JG's application for permission to appeal was refused.
There was no final First-tier Tribunal decision for the Upper Tribunal to consider, as the FTT's attempts to set aside its own decisions were invalid.
The FTT's decision of 20 February 2024 to set aside the initial dismissal of JG's appeal was valid.
This was done under rule 37 of the FTT Rules 2008, which was applicable.
The FTT's decision of 02 May 2024 to set aside the 20 February 2024 decision was invalid.
The FTT lacked the power under the FTT Rules 2008 to set aside its own decision of 20 February 2024; rule 37 did not apply and rule 5 did not provide such a power.
JG's appeal was returned to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The lack of a valid final decision from the FTT meant the Upper Tribunal could not proceed with the appeal.
Similar Cases
Mirela Plescan v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2023] EWCA Civ 870
MD Ayaz Karim, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
[2024] EWHC 1368 (Admin)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v SV
[2023] UKUT 279 (AAC)
RA v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 207 (AAC)