KW v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: [2024] UKUT 410 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Fitzpatrick on 7 December 2024.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
- In considering Activity 9 Engaging with other people face to face, it is important both to take a holistic approach to the assessment of the evidence rather than focus on one area such as the appellant’s employment and to consider Schedule 1 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 where Engage socially is defined as (a) interact with others in a contextually and socially appropriate manner;(b) understand body language; and (c) establish relationships see also HA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 56 (AAC).
- Where an appellant states they have difficulty doing an activity due to pain it is important to make careful findings of fact and consider the application of Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 see also CPIP/2377/2015, PS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0326 (AAC) and LB v SSWP [2024] UKUT 338 (AAC).
- When considering an application for an adjournment or postponement it is important to consider the triumvirate of issues outlined in MA v SSWP [2009] UKUT 211 (AAC) (CA/1546/2009) namely (i) the benefits of an adjournment (ii) the reason the party is not ready and (iii) the impact of an adjournment on the other party and the Tribunal system as a whole. It would be exceptional for an adjournment that would otherwise be granted to be refused solely on account of the needs of the system as a whole.