SC v Secretary for State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2025] UKUT 390 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Stout on 20 November 2025.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The First-tier Tribunal had properly directed itself as to the principles in Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818, as further explained in Stuewe v Health and Care Professions Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1605, that an appeal brought after the maximum 12-month extension permitted by rule 22(8) of the First-tier Tribunal procedure rules could only be admitted in exceptional circumstances where refusal would impair the essence of the right of appeal. It may be relevant, but is not always necessary, to consider in answering that question whether the appellant ‘has done everything they can to lodge an appeal within the time limit’.
Although rule 27(3) permits the Tribunal to strike out an appeal under rule 8 without holding a hearing, the First-tier Tribunal in this case erred in law by proceeding without holding a hearing. The First-tier Tribunal should have considered whether it was fair, just and appropriate to proceed without holding a hearing. The fact that a decision could be made on the papers did not mean that it should be and the fact that a hearing would have been unlikely to make a difference to the outcome was not a reason why a hearing should not be held.