The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) made on 2 August 2023 under number SC914/22/00006 was made in error of l
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) made on 2 August 2023 under number SC914/22/00006 was made in error of law. Under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 I set that decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered by a fresh tribunal in accordance with the following directions.
Directions
This case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) for reconsideration at an oral hearing.
It must be heard by a newly constituted FtT.
The FtT must conduct a complete rehearing of the issues that are raised by the appeal any other issues that merit consideration. While the FtT will need to address the grounds on which I have set aside the decision, it should not limit itself to these but must consider all aspects of the case, both fact and law, entirely afresh.
The new FtT is not bound by the decision of the previous FtT. Depending on the findings of fact it makes, the new FtT may reach the same or a different conclusion to the previous FtT. The fact that this appeal has succeeded on a point of law carries no implication as to the likely outcome of the rehearing, which is entirely a matter for the FtT to which this case is remitted.
These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the FtT.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Summary
The appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal succeeds. There is to be a fresh hearing of the original appeal before a new FtT.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) made on 2 August 2023 under number SC914/22/00006 was made in error of l
- Preliminary issues; Delay
- By virtue of Rule 5(3)(a) the Upper Tribunal has a discretion to extend time. The appellant has applied to extend time, but justifying such an extension is not a triviality re Salmon (deceased) [1981]
- The second respondent opposes an extension, referring to the Denton like approach taken in Martland v Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKUT 0178 (TCC) , the approach also taken in BB v Disclosure and Bar
- I will apply the approach in Martland and BB rather than Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, although I would not expect the two approaches typically to yield a different result
- Preliminary issues: hearing or no hearing
- The decision under appeal
- The Appeal
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 430 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)