Caselaw sets precedent. That may help with your clients cases. These can be used at the tribunal stage but also
before eg at Mandatory reconsideration/revision/ supersession.
The 3 Upper tribunal decisions below may be helpful in your clients' case. If you want to use them at a hearing,
you will need to print them and send them to the tribunal administration centre at least a week before the date of a
tribunal hearing. Quote directly from the decision when arguing why it applies for your client.
[2025] UKUT 326 (AAC) Appeal No. UA-2024-001710-PIP
Applies for PIP and other benefits- 'This appeal highlights the danger of a tribunal drawing inferences from
evidence of the medical treatment that a claimant has received (or has not received) as to the degree of a
claimant’s likely symptoms and any consequent functional limitations...
The Upper Tribunal says that while the drawing of such inferences will not always be impermissible, a tribunal
relying on such inferences would be wise to direct itself as to the risks associated with doing so, and to give a
careful explanation of its decision making in that regard...The appeal relates to a PIP claim, but the principles apply
equally to other benefts.'
[2025] UKUT 316 (AAC) Appeal No. UA-2024-001803-PIP
Applies for PIP- 'The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by proceeding with a telephone hearing without considering
whether it was fair to do so and whether reasonable adjustments could be made, including allowing his mother to
provide assistance during his evidence rather than only by giving evidence herself at the end of the hearing.'
[2025] UKUT 307 (AAC) Appeal No. UA-2025-000346-PIP
Applies for PIP- '...about the proper approach to assessing a claimant’s ability to carry out the activities
contemplated by the descriptors set out in Schedule 1 to the PIP Regulations where the claimant complains of
fatigue, and a need for prompting, as a result of a health condition...the First-tier Tribunal decided the claimant
experienced fatigue not as a symptom of her health conditions, but rather as a consequence of her working a full-
time job.... the tribunal should have considered the claimant’s ability to carry out the relevant activities at the times
when it was reasonable for her to carry them out. It was reasonable for the claimant to go out to work, and where it
was reasonable for the claimant to carry out an activity having completed a day’s work, her ability to do should be
assessed on that basis. '
Book now Benefit Appeals 2025