JP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (IB)

Factual and Procedural Background

The First-tier Tribunal issued a decision on 16 February 2001 under reference SC227/10/06528. This decision was challenged on the basis that it contained an error of law. The matter was subsequently appealed to the Upper Tribunal, which reviewed and set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision. The Upper Tribunal then remade the decision concerning the claimant's entitlement to incapacity benefit, specifically addressing the claimant's capability for work from 18 November 2010 onwards.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal made an error of law in its decision dated 16 February 2001.
2. Whether the claimant continued to be incapable of work and entitled to incapacity benefit from 18 November 2010.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Upper Tribunal identified that the First-tier Tribunal had made an error on a point of law in its prior decision. Based on this, the Tribunal set aside the earlier decision and remade it. The reasoning included an assessment of the claimant’s physical and mental health conditions, referencing a descriptor relating to physical capability (specifically the inability to pick up a coin of 2.5 centimetres or less diameter with one hand but able with the other, scoring 6 points) and a mental health assessment scoring 9 points. These assessments supported the conclusion that the claimant remained incapable of work from 18 November 2010.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed.

The decision of the Secretary of State made on 18 November 2010 and notified on 22 November 2011 is set aside.

From and including 18 November 2010, the claimant continued to be incapable of work and to be entitled to incapacity benefit.

The direct effect of this decision is to confirm the claimant's entitlement to incapacity benefit from the specified date. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.