CPAG search
If you're an adviser, you might like to try our Welfare Rights search.
Displaying 1501 - 1512 of 2000
A-K v SSWP (DLA)
[2017] UKUT 420 (AAC)
Age 65 'cut-off' regarding high rate mobility component not unlawful - R(DLA) 1/09 applied and followed
Decision in brief
Also, Upper Tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction cannot deal with argument based on alleged breach of Equality Act 201 O (although can in exercising judicial review function) - regarding high rate for severe visual impairment, the relevant part of the Equality Act was not in force when the regulations were made - in any case, 'due regard' was had to age issues' - even in the event of all that being wrong, the suggested remedy of disapplying the regulations would bring no benefit to the claimant or anyone else
Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CDLA/1461/2014
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
MS v SSWP (PC)
[2017] UKUT 48 (AAC)
Right to reside under Article 7(1 )(b) EC Directive 2004/38/EC - self-sufficient with comprehensive sickness insurance
Decision in brief
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in Brey requires a personalised assessment of whether claimant would be a burden on the social assistance system - subsequent decisions of CJEU in Dano, Alimanovic, Garcia-Neto and Mirga do not alter that, as they are about different rights to reside, and in particular do not concern claimants with comprehensive sickness insurance and a previous record of self-sufficiency
Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPC/5400/2014
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
SP v SSWP (IB)
[2013] UKUT 475 (AAC)
Incapacity benefit (IB) - qualification for on basis of receipt of German unemployment benefit II (Arbeitslosengeld II) - whether counted as a cash sickness benefit for purposes of Article 40(3) of EC Regulation 1408/71
Decision in brief
It is now a special non-contributory cash benefit, and before that it did not qualify as a cash sickness benefit - therefore, did not provide basis for entitlement to UK long-term incapacity benefit
Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CIB/710/2011
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
AH v SSWP
[2016] UKUT 541 (AAC)
The 'required period condition' consists of a three-month retrospective period and a nine- month prospective period - entitlement must be satisfied in each of those periods
Decision in brief
Tribunal did not err in failing to treat them as a single 12-month period and in not considering the claimant's entitlement in that period as a whole - the 50 per cent of the time rule, by contrast, applies to descriptors rather than component or rate, and applies to the 12-month 'required period' as a whole
Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
CPIP/2504/2016
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
NK v SSWP
[2025] UKUT 363 (AAC)
Tribunals – matters not raised by appeal and failure to give sufficient warning of less favourable decision
Decision in brief
Claimant awarded personal independence payment (PIP) but appealed in order to argue for more points – First-tier Tribunal treated the appeal as raising the question of her entitlement to the points she had already been awarded as a matter of course – error of law – section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998 provides that tribunal ‘need not’ consider matters not raised by the appeal (such as points already awarded by the Secretary of State) – although there is discretion to consider matters not raised by the appeal, that discretion must be exercised consciously and judiciously – LH v SSWP (PIP) [2022] UKUT 32 (AAC) and EG v SSWP (PIP) [2015] UKUT 275 (AAC) cited and followed – tribunal also erred in not giving claimant a warning that it was minded to remove points already awarded – general warning of tribunal’s powers was not sufficient to ensure fairness – BTC v SSWP [2015] UKUT 155 cited and followed
Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2025-000404-PIP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG
PMN v SSWP
[2025] UKUT 336 (AAC)
Tribunals – claimant and her representative attended the video hearing remotely from abroad without having applied for permission to do so
Decision in brief
First-tier Tribunal refused to allow the claimant or her representative to give evidence or make submissions and went on to dismiss the appeal – error of law in not providing a fair hearing – the First-tier Tribunal referred to Chamber President’s Guidance Note No.7, Taking Evidence from Overseas, which referred to a need to satisfy the tribunal that there was no legal or diplomatic barrier to their giving evidence – but that was guidance and did not override the duty to provide a fair hearing – social security tribunals are required by the overriding objective in their own procedure rules to be flexible and fair – subsequently, the Court of Appeal in Raza v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 29 has decided that it is lawful to hear evidence from abroad, and although taking of evidence from abroad without the permission of the state concerned might be contrary to the public interest, the sanctions for that were diplomatic not legal
Jurisdiction
Upper Tribunal
On
Appeal reference
UA-2025-000487-HRP
Date of decision
Date published by CPAG