Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 353 (AAC)

Fecha: 01-Ene-2025

The First-tier Tribunal’s decision

The First-tier Tribunal’s decision

46.

In its decision the tribunal summarised the undisputed facts and recorded the appellant’s initial submission that, having regard to the definition of “period of deferment” in s.55(3), he had two discrete stand-alone periods of deferment, not one single period. The tribunal went on to note briefly the submissions by the appellant which I have just summarised, including the policy intention behind s.54. The decision notice then continues:

“9.
The Tribunal, having considered [the appellant’s] arguments, extensive and thorough as they are, is not persuaded by [the appellant’s] position. The Tribunal, in considering [the appellant’s] position, had in mind the Upper Tribunal decision of KH v SSWP [2014] UKUT 138 (AAC). Whilst the facts are different, similarities can be drawn from the Upper Tribunal’s conclusions, that being that the pension claim is determined at the outset and then the percentage increase then applied to the pension; the pension increase so earned then remained as part of his pension for life. This appears to be the approach followed by the Respondent, in that after [the appellant’s] de-retirement, his pension entitlement was determined afresh, and the percentage applied adopting the formula set out in Schedule 5 of the SSCBA 1992.”

47.

The appellant applied to the tribunal on 11^th December 2024 for permission to appeal, stating as his grounds, in summary:

the modern approach to statutory interpretation is contextual and purposive. The tribunal’s decision fails to address the complete lack of any attempt by the Secretary of State to advance any argument based on such an approach. It does not consider the appellant’s argument that the Secretary of State’s construction would produce unjust, absurd or anomalous results or the Secretary of State’s failure to comply with the direction to address the appellant’s argument on s.55(3);

the decision also fails to address the appellant’s own detailed arguments;

the decision in KH on which the tribunal relies involved one period of deferment only and is irrelevant.

48.

Permission to appeal was granted by the District Tribunal Judge on 23^rd January 2025 on the grounds that:

it was arguable that there was an error of law in the tribunal’s interpretation of the term “period of deferment”;

it was arguable that the tribunal made an error of law in deciding that the increase in pension entitlement occurred only once;

it is arguable that KH could be distinguished as it was concerned with only one period of deferment.