MB v SSWP
[2024] UKUT 271 (AAC)
NH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
13 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 173 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman appealed a decision denying her disability benefits. The judge agreed that the original decision was unfair because it relied on information the woman never got a chance to respond to, and didn’t properly consider her difficulties with cooking. The case will be heard again by a different judge.
Key Facts
- •Appellant has an artificial right eye and other vision difficulties, anxiety, and depression.
- •Appealed First-tier Tribunal's decision refusing PIP entitlement from 5 January 2022.
- •First-tier Tribunal decision contained errors: incorrect points awarded in Decision Notice vs. Statement of Reasons.
- •First-tier Tribunal relied on RNIB website information without giving appellant opportunity to comment.
- •First-tier Tribunal incorrectly reasoned on appellant's ability to cook safely, ignoring oral evidence of cutting herself while cooking.
- •Secretary of State supported the appeal.
Legal Principles
Fairness requires parties to have opportunity to comment on a Tribunal's use of specialist knowledge or expertise.
R (L) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2003] EWHC 2907 (Admin), [2004] ELR 161; MB v Department for Social Development (II) [2010] NICom 133, C1/10-11(II) at [14]; Harrow LBC v AM [2013] UKUT 0157 (AAC), [2013] ELR 351
In assessing whether an activity can be carried out safely, a tribunal must consider whether there is a real possibility of harm occurring, considering likelihood and severity.
RJ v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC); [2017] AACR 32
A tribunal 'shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made'.
section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
First-tier Tribunal's decision involved errors of law due to reliance on RNIB website information without affording the appellant the opportunity to comment, and inadequate reasoning regarding the appellant's ability to cook safely.
First-tier Tribunal's decision set aside.
Errors of law identified in the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
Case remitted for reconsideration by a fresh First-tier Tribunal.
To ensure a fair hearing considering all relevant evidence and correcting errors of law.