[2025] UKUT 332 (AAC)

Appeal Nos. UA-2024-000383-PIP and

UA-2024-000293-ESA

RULE 14 Order:

Save with the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall publish or reveal the name or address of the appellant TR or the town in which she lives, or any information that would be likely to lead to identification of the same.

Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.

Between:

(1) TR

(2) GD

Appellants

- v -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

Respondent

Before: The Hon. Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE, Upper Tribunal Judge West and Upper Tribunal Judge Stout

Mode of hearing: Hybrid

Representation:

For TR: David Stead, Tyne and Wear Centre Against Unemployment

For GD: Tom Royston of counsel, instructed by Child Poverty Action Group

Respondent: Paul Skinner of counsel

On appeal from (in the case of TR):

Tribunal: First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC232/22/00219

Tribunal Venue: North Shields

Decision Date: 11 October 2023

On appeal from (in the case of GD):

Tribunal: First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Tribunal Case No: SC302/23/00131

Tribunal Venue: Ashford

Decision Date: 28 June 2023

SUMMARY OF DECISION

REVIEWS, REVISIONS AND SUPERSESSIONS (30)

This case concerns appeals brought following an application to the Secretary of State for revision of a previous decision of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Social Security Act 1998 (SSA 1998) or previous supersession decision under section 10 of that Act. The three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal reviews the case law and decides (disapproving in part PH and SM v SSWP (DLA) (JSA) [2018] UKUT 404 (AAC) and some other earlier cases) that:-

(1) 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);

(2) 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 Procedural Rules for lack of jurisdiction;

(3) If an application has been made but the Secretary of State has not yet considered it, the Tribunal may consider staying the appeal to enable the Secretary of State to do so;

(4) 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;

(5) On such appeals, if the appeal is brought within that time limit (including any extension), then:

a. 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;

b. 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.

The same “full merits” approach applies whether the Secretary of State refuses the application to revise, or allows it only in part or (obiter)revises it adversely to the claimant.

Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judges follow.

DECISION