Secretary of State for Work and Pensions -v- JM and Liverpool City Council (HB)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Jones |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 337 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Housing,council tax benefits,council tax benefits - other,Jones,R |
| Date | 15 April 2020 |
| Published date | 07 December 2020 |
SSWP –v- JM and Liverpool City Council (HB)
[2020] UKUT 337 (AAC)
1
CH/1253/2018 (V)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No: CH/1253/2018 (V)
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Jones
Attendances:
For the Appellant: Mr Buckingham of Counsel, instructed by the Government
Legal Department
For the First Respondent: Ms Ruth Knox, Welfare Rights Advisor, Raise
benefits and money advice
The Second Respondent did not participate and was not represented
DECISION
The Upper Tribunal allows the appeal of the Appellant, the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Liverpool on
28 July 2017 under reference SC068/15/04473 involved an
error on a material point of law and is set aside.
The Upper Tribunal is in a position to re-decide the appeal
and substitute its own decision. It therefore re-makes the
decision and confirms the Second Respondent’s decision of 9
March 2015. It decides that the Housing Benefit of the First
Respondent should be reduced by 14%.
This decision is made under section 12(1), 12(2)(a) and
12(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
2007
REASONS FOR DECISION
COVID-19, Remote hearing and Public Hearing
1. I heard this case remotely on 7 April 2020 (prior to the coming into
force of the Tribunal Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules on
10 April 2020). The appeal was conducted via Skype for Business with
the parties participating through video-camera. The Second
SSWP –v- JM and Liverpool City Council (HB)
[2020] UKUT 337 (AAC)
2
CH/1253/2018 (V)
Respondent did not participate or attend the hearing, as it had not
participated throughout the appeal.
2. Pursuant to s.29ZA of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
(inserted by the Coronavirus Act 2020) the Upper Tribunal used its
reasonable endeavours to make a recording of these proceedings using
the Skype for Business recording facility and preserve it for a
reasonable time in case a member of the public wishes to view or listen
to the proceedings.
3. Notice of the remote hearing was published on 6 April 2020, 24 hours
via HM Courts and Tribunal Service’s hearing list for the
Administrative Appeals Chamber (‘AAC’) on the public website. The
online notice contained a form of words that invited any media
representative or any other member of the public who wished to
witness the hearing to contact the AAC email address so as to enable
themselves to be joined to the hearing. No person in fact joined the
hearing. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that reasonable notice was given
to the public as to how to attend or witness the hearing such that it did
constitute a public hearing for the purposes of Rule 37 of the Tribunal
Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. The parties’ representatives
did not object to that proposition.
4. In any event, to the extent that the hearing was conducted in private, I
am satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to do so in the light of
the exceptional public health considerations and because the response
of the Upper Tribunal, as with other parts of the courts and tribunals,
has been and remains in a phase of rapid development and
administrative support has been impaired. I am satisfied that the
hearing could have proceeded as a private hearing. It was in the
interests of justice, particularly where the public can access a copy of
the recording and this decision will be issued to the parties and
publicly.
To continue reading
Request your trial