TH v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

Working Tax Credit is a social security benefit for the purposes of paragraph 40 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008. The definition includes other state benefits and is not limited to benefits administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. Where statutory or scheme wording is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied according to its natural meaning; a purposive construction is necessary only where the wording is capable of more than one meaning. Judicial review of specialist tribunal decisions requires restraint. The reviewing court must respect the tribunal’s role as fact-finder and should not re-try the case on the papers. A possible procedural error is immaterial where it could not have affected the outcome.

The applicant’s husband died following a criminal injury. She sought additional compensation for financial dependency under paragraph 40 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refused an award, concluding that the deceased’s only normal income had been social security benefits, including Working Tax Credit.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal after considering the deceased’s employment and benefit history. Written reasons were issued on 14 January 2021. The applicant obtained permission to bring judicial review proceedings, arguing that Working Tax Credit was not a social security benefit and that the tribunal had mishandled the evidence. The central questions were whether Working Tax Credit fell within paragraph 40 and whether the tribunal had made a material error of law.

1. Outcome. The judicial review proceedings under section 15 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2008 were dismissed.
2. Working Tax Credit. Paragraph 40(1), read with paragraph 40(2) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008, was clear and unambiguous. The expression “social security benefits” includes all United Kingdom social security benefits and other state or local authority benefits. Working Tax Credit is a state benefit, irrespective of its administration by HM Revenue and Customs rather than the Department for Work and Pensions. It therefore falls within paragraph 40.
3. Construction. The ultimate task is to ascertain the meaning of the words used in their context. A purposive construction may be adopted where the wording is capable of more than one meaning. That threshold was not met. The Hansard passage relied upon did not establish a sufficiently clear purpose capable of altering the ordinary meaning of paragraph 40.
4. Review of specialist tribunals. The approach in CICA v Hutton and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1305 required restraint and caution. The Upper Tribunal should respect the First-tier Tribunal’s function as the tribunal of fact and should not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to draw legitimate inferences from the evidence and its reasons were to be read fairly and as a whole.
5. Evidence and procedural fairness. Even if the First-tier Tribunal had obtained information about Royal Mail’s workforce from outside the hearing without inviting submissions, that error would not have been material because the information was peripheral and could not have changed the result. The judge nevertheless confirmed that tribunals must take great care before relying on information obtained online, consistent with HI v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] UKUT 0238 (AAC).
6. The tribunal’s findings concerning the deceased’s employment history, job applications and future plans were open to it on the evidence. The Written Reasons did not disclose a material error of law.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Judicial review proceedings concerning the First-tier Tribunal’s decision dated 26 November 2020 were dismissed.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): The applicant’s appeal against CICA’s refusal of additional compensation was dismissed following an oral hearing on 26 November 2020. Written reasons were issued on 14 January 2021.