LB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA): [2025] UKUT 132 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Butler on 22 April 2025.
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
皇冠体育app Upper Tribunal allowed LB鈥檚 appeal on the basis of several material errors of law.
皇冠体育app First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) uses a computer appeals system called Judicial Case Manager (鈥淛CM鈥�). This provides a digital decision notice tool for generating Decision Notices.
At the time of the Tribunal鈥檚 decision about LB, where used for employment and support allowance (鈥淓SA鈥�) appeals, the digital decision notice tool in JCM automatically wrote references to the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 into Decision Notices. It would do so even if the appeal in question was about new style ESA (where the applicable regulations are the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 instead). 皇冠体育app JCM tool would not allow a Tribunal to amend the automatically generated Decision Notice to remove incorrect references to the 2008 regulations.
皇冠体育app Upper Tribunal decided that the fact the First-tier Tribunal issued a Decision Notice generated by JCM that referred to the incorrect ESA regulations for LB, did not, of itself, amount to a material error of law.
However, where a First-tier Tribunal deciding a new style ESA appeal refers in its Statement of Reasons to the incorrect set of ESA regulations, it risks making an error of law by materially misdirecting itself in law.
皇冠体育app Upper Tribunal recommends that when explaining its decision about a new style ESA appeal, a First-tier Tribunal takes appropriate steps to demonstrate that it has actually applied the correct regulations in practice.
皇冠体育app Upper Tribunal also recommends that DWP clarifies in its Responses to ESA appeals whether the appeal in question relates to new style ESA.