[2024] UKUT 10 (AAC)

On 2 August 2023 the President, Judge Caldwell KC, acceded to the claimant’s application and granted him permission to appeal. It seemed to her that there was an arguable case that the Tribunal erred in point of law on the basis that

“7.

Essentially, the applicant argues that the legislation does not permit the abatement of UnSupp in respect of UC because UC is not named in Article 12(10) of the SPO as one of the benefits that the Secretary of State can take into account when adjusting an award of UnSupp to take account of other benefits.

8.

The Secretary of State does not support the appeal. The gravamen of the SSD’s argument is as follows:-

The Secretary of State considers that the Tribunal has given a clear and detailed explanation of its process of reasoning. It explains that it considered Articles 12 and 52 together to find that the Secretary of State has the power to adjust UnSupp in respect of other benefits equivalent to those specified in Article 12, which refers to the Social Security Act 1975. It then explains that sickness benefit as listed in the 1975 Act is equivalent to the health and LCWRA components of UC. Consequently, it reached the only logical conclusion: that UnSupp can be adjusted in respect of the health and LCWRA components of UC. This reasoning is cogent and easy to understand and the Secretary of State therefore considers that the Tribunal has fulfilled its obligation to provide adequate reasons for its decision.

Discussion and Decision

9.

Article 12 of the SPO provides for the payment of UnSupp and for those entitled to receive it. Art. 12(10) gives the SSD a discretion to take into account certain state pension benefits and equivalent non-UK benefits and set them off against the UnSupp allowance.

10.

Part VII of the SPO (articles 51 to 66) makes provision for reduction and cancellation of awards. Article 52 gives the SSD discretion to adjust awards in respect of other “compensation”. Compensation is defined in article 52(3). The purpose of this article is to prevent duplication of payments. Article 56 provides for abatement of awards in respect of social security benefits paid under certain Acts. This includes Part I of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Part I of the 2012 Act makes provision for the payment of UC. The tribunal dealt with the abatement in this case by reference to article 52. To my mind, it is arguable that it should have been considered in terms of article 56. I am therefore concerned that the tribunal may have been in error of law.

11.

For the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, I grant leave to appeal.”