BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) >> SW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2010] UKUT 295 (AAC) (13 August 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2010/295.html Cite as: [2010] UKUT 295 (AAC) |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
1. This appeal by the claimant succeeds. In accordance with the provisions of section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Darlington and made on 8th December 2009 under reference 224/09/00312. I refer the matter to a completely differently constituted panel in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal (not including any of the members who sat at either of the previous two hearings of this appeal) for a fresh hearing and decision in accordance with the directions given below.
2. Those acting on behalf of the claimant should consider requesting the First-tier Tribunal to hold an oral hearing and in default of such request consideration should in any event be given as to whether an oral hearing should be held. The parties should regard themselves as being on notice to send to the clerk to the tribunal as soon as is practicable any further relevant written medical or other evidence. The fact that the appeal has succeeded at this stage is not to be taken as any indication as to what the tribunal might decide in due course.
3. The parties are agreed that the decision of the tribunal was made in error of law. It is not necessary to go into any great detail. As I stated when granting permission to appeal:
“The same medical member of the First-tier Tribunal sat with different presiding judges in this case on 25th June 2009 and 8th December 2009, and on the earlier occasion considered the papers in preview with the judge. Thus the medical member had already discussed the case with a judge and therefore should not have sat on the later occasion. This was a breach of the rules of natural justice and fair procedure.”
H. Levenson
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
13th August 2010
