Hickey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Kitchin,Lord Justice Hickinbottom,Lord Justice Coulson |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWCA Civ 851 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2018] EWCA Civ 851
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Kitchin, Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Lord Justice Coulson
An appellant who, after obtaining permission to appeal, proposed substantial changes to the grounds of appeal was required to make a prompt application to amend the grounds of appeal. If no such application was made, the court was unlikely to be sympathetic.
The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeal of Amanda Hickey against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (Judge Humphreys) on January 14, 2016 refusing her appeal against a finding by the First-tier Tribunal that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had been correct in concluding that she had not met the statutory criteria for a personal independence payment.
The claimant had been given permission to appeal on a single issue relating to the tribunal's failure to deal with the support given by the claimant's counsellor. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on that issue and, because other points had been raised on appeal before the court that had not been made at the outset of the proceedings, and no formal application to amend the grounds had been made, the court made observations on the correct conduct of appeals.
Mr Tom Royston for the claimant; Ms Samantha Broadfoot, QC, for the secretary of state.
Lord Justice Hickinbottom, agreeing with Lord Justice Coulson that the appeal should be dismissed, said that, while it was important that the court was not a slave to form, the Civil Procedure Rules set out procedural requirements, and not mere aspirations. They did so for good reason.
The time of both parties and the court could be wasted if issues were not identified clearly and succinctly in the grounds of appeal, supported by relevant circumstances giving rise to the appeal and the appellant's arguments or submissions as set out in a skeleton argument. Without such proper focus, it was impossible for appeal courts to deal with their prodigious workloads efficiently and effectively.
The requirements of Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Directions made under Part 52 were clear.
Where an appellant who had obtained permission to appeal wished to rely upon a ground of appeal for which he had not previously sought permission to appeal, he had to seek permission to amend his grounds of appeal under rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valentine Harverye v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...appeal, skeleton arguments and oral submissions lacked the required and expected focus. 56 As I emphasised recently in Hickey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 851, especially at [73] and [74(iv)], it is incumbent upon the Appellant to set out in his grounds of app......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-06-08, [2020] UKUT 224 (IAC) (MM (section 117B(6) – EU citizen child))
...First-tier Tribunal not to address a submission it was not invited to consider. See Hickey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 851 at [52], per Coulson The submission is not, as Mr Bahja contends, “Robinson obvious”. If it had been, it would have been an error of the ......
-
The Queen (on the application of KA) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112; [1985] 3 WLR 830; [1985] 3 All ER 402, HL(E)Hickey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 851; [2018] 4 WLR 71; [2018] 3 All ER 563, CAPractice Statement (Administrative Court: Listing and Urgent Cases) [2002] 1 WLR 810; [2002] 1 All ......
-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v R Emiljano Spahiu
...in a trio of recent authorities, namely: R (Talpada) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 841, from paragraph 55 onwards; Hickey v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 851, from paragraph 69 onwards; and Browne v The Parole Board of England & Wales [2018] EWCA Civ 2024. This ca......