AM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2024] UKUT 289 (AAC)
JS v SSWP
1 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 90 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman's PIP claim was rejected because the tribunal ignored evidence of later seizures. A higher court overturned the decision, saying the tribunal misinterpreted the law and should have considered the later seizures to understand her condition at the time of the original claim. The case now goes back to the tribunal for a new hearing.
Key Facts
- •Appellant suffered from epilepsy, with seizures in 2002, 2016, 2017, November 2020, and January 2021.
- •Appellant's PIP claim was refused on July 15, 2019.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) excluded evidence of post-July 15, 2019 seizures, particularly the November 2020 seizure.
- •The FTT upheld the refusal of the PIP claim.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) granted permission to appeal, questioning the FTT's insufficient consideration of subsequent events.
- •The UT held a hearing and considered arguments regarding the FTT's interpretation of Section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998.
Legal Principles
Section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998: Tribunals shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made.
Social Security Act 1998, Section 12(8)(b)
The tribunal must consider the time to which evidence relates, not just the date it was produced. Evidence post-dating the decision is admissible if it relates to the relevant period.
R(DLA) 2/01 and R(DLA) 3/01 (Commissioner Jacobs)
The FTT's assessment of risk must consider whether there's a real possibility of harm, including likelihood and severity.
RJ, GMcL and CS v SSWP v RJ (PIP) [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT's decision.
The FTT erred in law by misinterpreting Section 12(8)(b) and failing to adequately consider the significance of the post-decision seizure evidence in assessing the risk at the time of the original decision. The FTT also made a significant mistake of fact regarding the appellant's epilepsy diagnosis. The FTT's assessment of risk was fundamentally flawed due to insufficient findings of fact regarding seizure warnings and inadequate consideration of evidence admissibility.
The appeal was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing.
To correct the errors of law and fact identified by the Upper Tribunal. The re-hearing will need to properly consider the admissible evidence and make appropriate findings of fact related to the appellant's epilepsy and risk of harm.