[2025] UKUT 200 (AAC)

I held an oral hearing of this appeal by CVP video on 17 March 2025. The SSWP was represented by Mr Lewis of counsel. IL was represented by his ex-wife, Ms D. IL moved to Greece after the FTT hearing. Ms D took part in the hearing from Greece. It was possible, and consistent with, the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) Guidance Note dated 02 August 2022, for Ms D to represent IL. This was because the issue before the Upper Tribunal was about whether the FTT had made an error of law, and Ms D made oral submissions rather than giving oral evidence to the Upper Tribunal.

At the start of the hearing, Ms D explained IL was not going to take part in the hearing, as he found it difficult to deal with stress, which exacerbated the effects of his medical condition.

At the start of the hearing, Ms D also confirmed she did not have the bundle of authorities for the appeal (containing case law and legislation), or the skeleton argument Mr Lewis had prepared on behalf of the SSWP. Mr Lewis explained that the Government Legal Department, which represents the SSWP, had liaised directly with IL to agree the contents of that bundle with him. Ms D acknowledged this was possible and that IL had not passed the bundle or Mr Lewis’ skeleton argument to her.

I explained to Ms D that she should have access to the bundle of legislation and case law and Mr Lewis’ written skeleton argument so that she could understand the issues being addressed. I explained the Upper Tribunal’s inquisitorial role means it would look at legal issues for itself and explore case law and legislation, even if a party did not feel able to address these directly. I explained the bundle of authorities was 127 pages long. Ms D stated she thought that having half an hour would be sufficient for her to look at the bundle and skeleton argument.

In the circumstances, and having spoken with the parties, I adjourned the hearing for 45 minutes, so that Ms D could be sent (and read) the authorities bundle and Mr Lewis’ skeleton argument by email. The parties confirmed they wanted to go ahead, with Ms D having some time to look at the bundle. They indicated they were willing to go ahead with a 45 minute-adjournment. When the hearing resumed, Ms D confirmed she had been able to look at the documents quickly and was willing to proceed.

I was grateful to both Mr Lewis and Ms D for taking part in the hearing, and for their thoughtful and helpful submissions.

At the hearing, I indicated to the parties that I hoped to produce a decision within around one month to six weeks. However, it has taken longer, and has taken the full three months given to the Upper Tribunal to produce substantive decisions. I apologise to the parties, in particular, to IL and Ms D, that it has taken the longer period of time to produce my decision.