Caselaw relating to UK and Scotland
Summary of the Decision Case: AR v SSWP (UC)Upper Tribunal Appeal Nos.: UA‑2025‑001172‑USTA & UA‑2025‑001189‑USTADecision: Appeal allowed; First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) decisions set asideNext step: Matter remitted to a new FTT for a full oral hearing Why the Upper Tribunal Allowed the Appeal The Upper Tribunal (UT) found material errors of law in the FTT’s handling […]
UT Flags Major Errors in Right‑to‑Reside Assessment Read More »
Adviser Summary – [2026] UKUT 58 (AAC) Judge: WikeleyDecision date: 5 February 2026Issue: Universal Credit – Childcare Costs Element (CCE)Case reference: UA‑2025‑000643‑UCC What the case was about The appeal dealt with how entitlement to the childcare costs element should be assessed when a claimant makes two childcare payments in the same Assessment Period (AP). The
UT Says Yes to Double Childcare Payments—What Advisers Need to Know Read More »
A recent Upper Tribunal decision, SSWP v NC (UA‑2025‑SCO‑000070‑UC), provides an important clarification for advisers supporting clients whose Universal Credit (UC) entitlement ends due to absence from Great Britain. What Happened? The claimant had been receiving UC since 2019. Her appointee notified DWP that she would be abroad for just over a month, from 13
Below is a detailed briefing note for advisers on UTS/AS/25/0130 — GM v Social Security Scotland [2026] UT 11, written in a professional format suitable for internal welfare rights use. Briefing Note for Advisers GM v Social Security Scotland [2026] UT 11 Reference: UTS/AS/25/0130Decision Date: 26 January 2026 1. Overview of the Decision The Upper
ADP Case Collapses from Exhaustion After Tribunal Ignores Fatigue Read More »
A new Upper Tribunal decision has provided important clarification on how First‑tier Tribunals should approach evidence relating to claimants’ employment when determining Personal Independence Payment (PIP) entitlement. The case SS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP), published on 27 January 2026, highlights serious errors in the way the tribunal balanced employment evidence
Whether a tenancy was “commercial” for the purposes of calculating the housing costs element in a Universal Credit claim. DB v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Decision Date: 18 October 2025 Issue: Whether a tenancy was “commercial” for the purposes of calculating the housing costs element in a Universal Credit claim. Key
Caselaw: Commercial Tenancy Test for UC Housing Cost Read More »
PIP case law can help interpret ADP decisions since many descriptors are similar. But ADP is governed by Scottish law, so tribunals aren’t bound by PIP rulings. It’s guidance, not gospel. EW v SSWP [2025] UKUT 307 (AAC) – The Upper Tribunal overturned a PIP decision, ruling that the First-tier Tribunal wrongly dismissed EW’s fatigue
Upper Tribunal says: assess real-life, not just work fatigue. Read More »
