(1) TR (2) GD v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP, ESA): [2025] UKUT 332 (AAC)
Source: gov.uk (2025-10-17)

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Mrs Justice Heather Williams, Judge West and Judge Stout on 6 October 2025.

Read the full decision in UA-xx-xxxx-xxxx-PIP and UA-xx-xxxx-xxxx-ESA (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69384f8ccfacd5e888491ca8/UA-xx-xxxx-xxxx-PIP_and_UA-xx-xxxx-xxxx-ESA_6-10-25_corrected.pdf).

Judicial Summary

This case concerns appeals brought following an application to the Secretary of State for revision of a previous decision of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Social Security Act 1998 (SSA 1998) or previous supersession decision under section 10 of that Act. The three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal reviews the case law and decides (disapproving in part PH and SM v SSWP (DLA) (JSA) [2018] UKUT 404 (AAC) and some other earlier cases) that:-

(1) Where an application for revision has been made more than 13 months after the original decision or supersession decision, whether the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction on appeal depends on the Secretary of State having considered an application that is in substance a request for revision that raises grounds which, if made out, would be capable of being in fact or law an official error (or other relevant “any time” ground for revision);

(2) If the Tribunal decides that, properly construed, the application was not such an application, the Tribunal must strike out the appeal under rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedural Rules for lack of jurisdiction;

(3) If an application has been made but the Secretary of State has not yet considered it, the Tribunal may consider staying the appeal to enable the Secretary of State to do so;

(4) If the Secretary of State has considered such an application, the primary one-month time limit (with maximum 13-month extension) for appealing to the Tribunal under regulation 22 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules applies, and it begins to run from the date the claimant is sent notice of the revision decision;

(5) On such appeals, if the appeal is brought within that time limit (including any extension), then:

a. if the application was for revision of an original decision under section 8, the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction on a “full merits” and de novo basis and must deal with the case as if it is standing in the shoes of the Secretary of State on the date that the Secretary of State made the original decision under section 8, save that (by virtue of section 12(8)(a) of the SSA 1998) it need not consider any issue not raised by the appeal;

b. if the application was for revision of a supersession decision under section 10, the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction is similarly “full merits” and de novo but the Tribunal is standing in the shoes of the Secretary of State on the date that the Secretary of State made the supersession decision and so is limited, as the Secretary of State was when taking the decision, to considering whether one of the legislative grounds for supersession has been established and, if so, what the consequences of that should be applying the legislative scheme.

The same “full merits” approach applies whether the Secretary of State refuses the application to revise, or allows it only in part or (obiter) revises it adversely to the claimant.