header-logo header-logo

Upper Tribunal rules DWP acted unlawfully

11 August 2017
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

The government’s time restrictions on access to the social security appeals system are unlawful, the Upper Tribunal has ruled.

Since 2013, social security claimants wishing to challenge a refusal of benefit must apply for a ‘mandatory reconsideration’ before they can appeal to an independent tribunal. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refuses to allow the appeal if it decides a mandatory reconsideration application has been made too late.

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) brought a test case on behalf of CJ and SG, two women with serious health problems, who were refused employment and support allowance and made late applications to challenge the refusal decisions. In both cases, the DWP initially refused to allow the appeal but it was subsequently established that the women were entitled to the benefits.

The DWP argued that its decisions were lawful as they could be challenged by judicial review. However, the Upper Tribunal observed that out of 1,544,805 mandatory reconsideration decisions since 2013, nobody had managed to bring a judicial review.

The Upper Tribunal unanimously held the Secretary of State’s position unlawful as it would make the Secretary of State ‘gatekeeper to the independent tribunal system’. It held the correct position is to give the claimant 13 months from the original decision to make a mandatory reconsideration request, in R (CJ) and SG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKUT 0324 (AAC).

CPAG’s legal officer Carla Clarke said: ‘This decision ensures that even if the DWP thinks there is no good reason for their delay, it cannot prevent such individuals pursuing an appeal before an independent tribunal. To have found otherwise would have been to uphold a system where the decision maker also acts as arbiter of whether an individual could challenge their decision or not—a clear conflict of interest and an affront to justice.’

Issue: 7758 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll