
Benefits & Welfare judgments from UK courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Upper Tribunal ruled that a father was not entitled to child tax credit for his daughter who lived in Spain. The decision was based on legal errors in previous rulings and the fact that the father was not considered 'responsible' for his daughter under UK law.
The Upper Tribunal allowed appeals, setting aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision due to an error of law. The Tribunal ruled that certain services included in the EHMC are eligible for housing benefit if they are essential for the residents' needs.
The Upper Tribunal decided that the forfeiture rule does not apply to the claimant, meaning she can continue receiving her higher Category B retirement pension without any reduction or recovery of past payments.
The Upper Tribunal dismissed a claimant's appeal because they did not request a statement of reasons for the decision in time. The case involved a dispute over state pension credit overpayment.
The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal against a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) decision because the First-tier Tribunal made an error in its decision-making process. The case was sent back to a new First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.
The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal, finding that the First-tier Tribunal made a mistake in its understanding of the law regarding Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Specifically, the First-tier Tribunal incorrectly interpreted the requirement for attention from another person for a significant portion of the day. The case was sent back to a different tribunal for a fresh look.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal because the First-tier Tribunal made a mistake by not holding an oral hearing. The First-tier Tribunal failed to properly investigate whether the appellant could attend a hearing due to medical appointments.
The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal made mistakes in its decision about whether the claimant was eligible for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). They ordered a new hearing to reassess the claimant's eligibility.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the claimant's appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's decision on Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) entitlement. The claimant argued that the same judge had discussed the facts with one panel member who was not on the final panel, breaching fair procedure. The Upper Tribunal agreed, setting aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision and referring the matter to a completely different panel for a fresh hearing.