JE v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2020] UKUT 17 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Ward on 14 January 2020.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
In a case where there was substantial evidence of acquired brain injury (although its impact remained in dispute) and there were submissions that the claimant was, on account of his injury, lacking in insight and prone to confabulation, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions conceded that the First-tier Tribunal had erred by not applying (alternatively, not being seen to have applied) the Practice Direction “First-tier and Upper Tribunal - Child, Vulnerable Adults and Sensitive Witnesses”. RT v SSWP (PIP)[2019] UKUT 207 (AAC) applied. The Secretary of State for Work and Pension’s concession was accepted, even though the claimant’s representative had ticked the enquiry form to indicate that he had no special needs. While other matters raised by the case were not examined in detail in view of the Secretary of State for Work and Pension’s concession, the Upper Tribunal, obiter, pointed out that it would be likely to have assisted the First-tier Tribunal if someone from a specialist not for profit organisation who had personal experience of supporting the claimant and who attended the First-tier Tribunal hearing with him was wishing to give evidence as a witness had indicated that fact expressly, rather than being described in paperwork sent to the tribunal merely as one of two “representatives”.