Abdelaziz Dawod v 1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2) Darahim Khair Alla (UC): [2026] UKUT 360 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judges Wright, Wikeley and Butler on 17 September 2026.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
This is a decision about the test for deciding whether, on an application, the Secretary of State has considered whether to revise an original decision, so as to give rise to a right of appeal against the original decision under section 12(1) and (3A)-(3B) of the Social Security Act 1998. It was accepted that the appellant had made an application for revision and further conceded that the basis for revising the original decision was satisfied, but the Secretary of State argued the ‘consider whether to revise’ test was not met because there had to be evidence showing the Secretary of State’s decision-maker had actually considered whether or not to revise the original decision. The Upper Tribunal rejects this argument and decides that whether there has been the necessary consideration on an application whether to revise are issues of fact to be decided on all the relevant evidence. In this appeal the Secretary of State had considered whether to revise the original decision.
The decision comments, relatedly, on KU v SSWP (UC) [2026] UKUT 38 (AAC) and concludes that it took the wrong route to reach its (correct) decision by deciding whether time could be extended to admit a late application for revision.
The decision also considers the legislatively opaque basis upon which the FTT had purported to set aside its substantive decision on the appeal, and decides that a decision to set aside under rule 37 of the FTT’s procedure rules is not an excluded decision under section 11(5)(d) or (e) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.