Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v NJ: [2024] UKUT 194 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Stout on 5 July 2024
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the claimant’s temporary absences from Great Britain in order to be treated by exposure to sunlight at her family home in Spain fell within the exception in regulation 153 of The Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 so that she continued to be entitled to benefits while abroad. The Upper Tribunal considers what is meant by: (a) the requirement in regulation the absence to be “solely… in connection with … treatment”; (b) the meaning of “treatment” and “arrangements for treatment”; and (c) the requirement for treatment to be by, or under the supervision of, a person “appropriately qualified to carry out that treatment”. The Upper Tribunal holds that in this case the Tribunal properly directed itself in law and reached conclusions on the facts that were not perverse. The Upper Tribunal also holds that the Tribunal did not err in law in proceeding as a judge sitting alone and not reconstituting as a panel with a specialist medical member.