[2025] UKUT 259 (AAC)

As explained above, the Appellant’s case is that the one month rule in regulation 11(1)(b) is unlawful on grounds of indirect discrimination. If (contrary to the submissions above) that Ground is made out, he has made no submissions on how this could be remedied by the Upper Tribunal.

The Appellant has not made any submissions on how the regulation could be interpreted pursuant to s.3 of the HRA in a way which is compatible with Article 14. Any interpretation of regulation 11(1)(b) to extend the one month rule in the case of disabled persons would go well beyond interpretation and would stray into the legislative function which is not permitted by s. 3 of the HRA. It would require in substance, the Tribunal to determine for itself a new set of circumstances under which absence for medical reasons must be disregarded, including the appropriate period of absence as well as other qualifying conditions.

Nor, as the Appellant accepts, is this a case where the Tribunal, by disapplying a provision in the 2013 Regulations or otherwise, can treat the Appellant as entitled to UC. That is because, in the absence of any applicable exception, s. 4 of the 2012 Act applies and the Upper Tribunal is bound to give effect to it.