![[2025] UKUT 259 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. UA-2024-000647-USTA
(ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER)
Appellant KK
and
Respondent THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK AND PENSIONS
BEFORE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEST
Hearing Date: 1 August 2025
Decision Date: 1 August 2025
Representation: Mr Alex Kane, welfare benefits caseworker, for the Appellant
(Hackney Community Law Centre)
Ms Cecilia Ivimy KC, counsel, for the Respondent
(instructed by the Government Legal Department)
ON APPEAL FROM
Tribunal: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement
Chamber)
Tribunal Venue: Fox Court
Tribunal Case No: SC242/23/05918
Tribunal Hearing Date: 1/11/2023
Summary of Decision Universal Credit - proper interpretation of regulation 11(3)(a)(i) Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (“the 2013 Regulations”) - whether rules governing temporary absence abroad from Great Britain for medical treatment comply with Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 1 to the First Protocol (“A1P1”), of the European Convention on Human Rights - whether a period of absence abroad can be split into multiple phases, such that a universal credit (“UC”) claimant who suffers a medical emergency after departure can have his continued absence from Great Britain disregarded under the medical treatment provisions, either under regulation 11 of the 2013 Regulations or, if necessary, in order to achieve a Convention-compliant reading of that regulation
Keyword Name 45 Universal Credit
45.9 Universal Credit other
Please note that the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and the Reasons of the Judge follow.
DECISION
- Heading
- Section 1
- The Statutory Framework
- The Background Facts
- The Decision of the Tribunal
- Ground 1: The Tribunal erred in its treatment of regulation 11(3)(a)(i) of the 2013 Regulations in requiring the need for medical treatment to predate a claimant’s departure from Great Britain
- Ground 1: Interpretation of the 2013 Regulations
- The absence is in connection with the death of a close family member and The Secretary of State considers it unreasonable to expect the claimant to return within one month
- A claimant who does fall within those paragraphs will have retain entitlement in assessment period 2
- The Secretary of State (or the Tribunal) may extend time by up to a further month
- Ground 2: Interference with Convention rights
- Status
- Difference in treatment
- Justification
- This is likely to be a relatively small cohort These are not concerns unique to a need for treatment postdating a claimant’s departure from Great Britain. Decision makers already need to make evaluative judgements on issues of intention to return
- Remedy
- Ground 2A: Discrimination with respect to housing benefit claimants
- Justification
- Why the Upper Tribunal is invited to grant permission: factors other than merits
- Ground 3: the Secretary of State’s concession as to the amount of overpayment
- Ground 3: assessment period beginning 24 February 2023 . The Secretary of State invited the Upper Tribunal to the appeal in part on an additional ground not raised by the Appellant. The Appellant’s ab
- Ground 1: even if the Appellant’s absence from 30 March 2023 to 23 April 2023 was solely in connection with qualifying treatment, that absence cannot be disregarded under regulation 11(3)(a)(i). The n
- Ground 2: the Appellant alleges that the one month rule in regulation 11(1)(b) discriminates indirectly against him Appellant as a disabled person in breach of Article 14 read with A1P1. There is insu
- Temporary absence
- qualifying convalescence: regulation 11(3)(a)(i) and (ii)
- Submissions Regulation 11(1)(b): assessment period beginning 24 February 2023
- Ground 1: interpretation of regulation 11(3)(a)(i)
- Ground 2: regulation 11(1)(b) and Article 14 ECHR
- No evidential basis for finding of indirect discrimination
- Justification
- A rule of this kind would necessarily expand the cohort of claimants who may retain
- Remedy
- Ground 2A: differences in Housing Benefit and UC rules and Article 14 ECHR
- Conclusion
- The Appellant and his wife were not entitled to UC from 24 March 2023 to 23 April 2023
- Analysis
- Ground 2A
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Justification
- Remedy
- Conclusions