AA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (JSA)

A First-tier Tribunal decision on a social-security appeal is final subject only to the statutory routes of revision, supersession or appeal. The common-law doctrine of res judicata is not the governing basis for finality in this context. A First-tier Tribunal decision cannot be revised. It may be superseded, but a supersession favourable to the claimant takes effect only from the date of the request and cannot retrospectively alter an expired benefit period. Once an appeal has been dismissed by the Upper Tribunal and no further appeal is brought, the First-tier Tribunal decision stands. Administrative error in a tribunal covering letter cannot alter the legal effect of the judge’s decision or create a power to reopen the case.

The appellant sought to challenge a 2010 sanction depriving him of Jobseeker’s Allowance for 12 weeks after termination of his employment for alleged gross misconduct. A First-tier Tribunal dismissed his original appeal in 2010. The Upper Tribunal dismissed his appeal in 2012, holding that although the First-tier Tribunal had erred by failing to address public-interest disclosure legislation, the error was not material and the decision stood.

An administrative covering letter incorrectly stated that the case had been remitted for a fresh hearing. In 2020 the appellant lodged a further appeal against the 2010 sanction. In 2021 a second First-tier Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter. The central issue was whether that conclusion involved an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The second First-tier Tribunal had adequately explained its decision and had made no material error of law. The original sanction decision therefore continued to stand.
2. Finality in social-security benefit cases is governed by statute rather than principally by the common-law doctrine of res judicata. Section 17(1) of the Social Security Act 1998 makes relevant decisions final, subject to the statutory provisions for revision, supersession and appeal.
3. The original First-tier Tribunal decision replaced the Secretary of State’s decision. It could not be revised, consistently with R(IB) 2/04. It could potentially be superseded, including for mistake of fact, but a supersession favourable to the appellant could take effect only from the date on which it was requested. The appellant’s request was made after the sanctioned period had expired, so supersession would have been ineffective.
4. The available appeal route had already been exhausted when the Upper Tribunal dismissed the 2012 appeal and no onward appeal was brought. The clerk’s erroneous letter suggesting a remittal could not override the judge’s decision, which had not set aside the original First-tier Tribunal decision.
5. Even assuming that the former employer or the Department for Work and Pensions had failed properly to investigate the allegations, the statutory framework provided no route to reopen the concluded sanction decision.

The appeal was dismissed under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber), 9 December 2010: dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the sanction decision.
• Upper Tribunal, 15 March 2012: dismissed the further appeal. The decision was reported as [2012] UKUT 100 (AAC); [2012] AACR 42.
• First-tier Tribunal, 30 September 2021: held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s further challenge.
• Upper Tribunal, 15 December 2022: dismissed the appeal against the 2021 decision.