![[2025] UKUT 332 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusion on the issues of principle
Conclusion on the issues of principle
It follows that, in relation to the issues identified for consideration in these cases, we have decided:
Where an application for revision has been made more than 13 months after the original decision or supersession decision, whether the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction on appeal depends on the Secretary of State having considered an application that is in substance a request for revision that raises grounds which, if made out, would be capable of being in fact or law an official error (or other relevant “any time” ground for revision);
If the Tribunal decides that, properly construed, the application was not such an application, the Tribunal must strike out the appeal under rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules for lack of jurisdiction;
If an application has been made but the Secretary of State has not yet considered it, the Tribunal may consider staying the appeal to allow the Secretary of State to do so;
If the Secretary of State has considered such an application, the primary one-month time limit (with maximum 13-month extension) for appealing to the Tribunal under regulation 22 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules applies, and it begins to run from the date the claimant is sent notice of the revision decision;
On such appeals, if the appeal is brought within that time limit (including any extension), then:
if the application was for revision of an original decision under section 8, the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction on a “full merits” and de novo basis and must deal with the case as if it is standing in the shoes of the Secretary of State on the date that the Secretary of State made the original decision under section 8, save that (by virtue of section 12(8)(a) of the SSA 1998) it need not consider any issue not raised by the appeal;
if the application was for revision of a supersession decision under section 10, the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction is similarly “full merits” and de novo but the Tribunal is standing in the shoes of the Secretary of State on the date that the Secretary of State made the supersession decision and so is limited, as the Secretary of State was when taking the decision, to considering whether one of the legislative grounds for supersession has been established and, if so, what the consequences of that should be applying the legislative scheme.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeals. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal in both appeals involved an error of law. Under section 12(2) (a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals
- These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a Tribunal Caseworker, Tribunal Registrar or Judge in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal
- The structure of our decision is as follows
- The facts of TR’s case and the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The facts of GD’s case and the First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The grounds of appeal in both cases and the parties’ positions
- Relevant legislative provisions
- The legal framework
- “Any grounds” revision requests and appeals
- “Any time” revision requests and appeals
- The consequences of our interpretation
- Previous case law
- The earlier legislation
- Wood v SSWP
- R (IS) 15/04
- R (IB) 2/04
- CJ and SG v SSWP
- PH and SM v SSWP
- The post PH and SM v SSWP decisions
- What is required in order to trigger the right of appeal to the Tribunal in cases to which mandatory reconsideration applies
- Conclusion on the issues of principle
- Disposal in TR’s case
- Conclusions