Ilirjan Hima v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 680
KA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
16 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 248 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A person was wrongly denied benefits because the tribunal didn't listen to her or properly investigate her case. They relied on secret information from the Home Office that was wrong. The higher court said the first court was unfair, and the person should get the benefits.
Key Facts
- •Appellant appealed First-tier Tribunal's refusal of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claim.
- •Refusal based on appellant being 'subject to immigration control'.
- •Appellant provided evidence of indefinite leave to remain since 2001.
- •First-tier Tribunal relied on Home Office information not disclosed to appellant.
- •First-tier Tribunal proceedings deemed unfair due to lack of hearing and opportunity to respond.
- •Secretary of State supported the appeal to the Upper Tribunal and accepted appellant's indefinite leave to remain.
- •The discrepancy seems to be due to a misspelling of the appellant's first name in Home Office records.
Legal Principles
Procedural fairness requires both sides to be heard and have an opportunity to make representations.
R v SSHD, ex p Doody [1994] 1 A.C. 531 at 560
Tribunal must hold a hearing unless each party consents and the Tribunal can decide without a hearing; Tribunal must keep under review whether it's fair to proceed without an oral hearing or in a party's absence.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008, rule 27; MM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2011] UKUT 334 (AAC); JP v SSWP [2011] UKUT 459 (AAC); PM v SSWP (IB) [2013] UKUT 301 (AAC)
Tribunals must exercise their inquisitorial jurisdiction and ensure a 'cards on the table' approach, ordering disclosure of relevant documents even if a third party objects.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008, rule 2(4)
Definition of 'person subject to immigration control' under section 115(9) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 115(9)
Tribunal must explain why it rejects evidence and cannot simply rely on the statements of a government body.
None explicitly cited, but implied throughout the reasoning.
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
First-tier Tribunal's decision involved an error of law due to unfair procedure and inadequate reasoning. The Tribunal failed to properly consider the appellant's evidence and relied on undisclosed Home Office information.
First-tier Tribunal's decision set aside.
The Tribunal proceeded unfairly by deciding on the papers without hearing the appellant, relying on undisclosed submissions, and failing to give adequate reasons.
Decision remade in appellant's favour.
Secretary of State confirmed appellant had indefinite leave to remain since 2001.