GB v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

When applying Schedule 9 paragraph 4 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, a tribunal must assess substantial risk from work-related activities a claimant might be required to do, including activities that could be imposed inappropriately. It must identify the least and most demanding activities that will actually be required of that claimant, rather than leave selection among a broad range of potentially safe and unsafe activities to a work coach. The substantial-risk question must then be decided for the activities that remain in scope.

GB claimed universal credit and said that he had limited capability for work-related activity. The Secretary of State disputed this. The First-tier Tribunal found that GB had limited capability for work but not for work-related activity. It accepted limitations affecting his ability to attend unfamiliar places and engage with unfamiliar people, but assessed substantial risk on the basis that the most demanding activity would be home-based research.

On appeal, the Secretary of State supported the appeal, accepting that GB had been attending the Restart programme in person and undertaking an IT course. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the risk assessment had to address those activities and other work-related activities GB might be required to do. It also considered of its own motion whether GB's identity should be protected.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal's assessment proceeded on the assumption that the most demanding work-related activity GB could be required to do was home-based research. That assumption was unsafe in light of evidence that he was attending Restart in person and completing an IT course. The Tribunal had accepted that he had difficulty travelling to unfamiliar places and engaging with unfamiliar people, yet did not assess the risk from the activities he was actually undertaking. The error was material.
2. Scope of Schedule 9 paragraph 4. The substantial-risk assessment under paragraph 4 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 must address work-related activity a claimant might be asked to do. This includes activity that might be imposed inappropriately through misjudgment or ignorance. It cannot be assumed that a work coach will impose only activity the claimant can safely complete; the paragraph provides a safeguard against the risk that unsuitable activity may be imposed.
3. Activities to be assessed. The KC and MC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2017] UKUT 94 (AAC) makes clear that the least and most demanding activities that will actually be required of the particular claimant must be identified. A list of possible activities that includes both safe and unsafe options is insufficient if selection is left to a work coach or provider. The Secretary of State must identify in advance which activities will be required and remove those that could not be imposed; the tribunal must assess the substantial-risk question for the remaining activities.
4. Anonymity. Open justice carries a strong presumption in favour of publishing parties' names, but the court must weigh that interest against risks to other legitimate interests. The judge considered the risk of harm or disengagement arising from publication of GB's identity, in light of his vulnerability and mental distress, and made an anonymity order under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. GB may apply within 28 days for the order to be revoked. The judge noted the change in the Upper Tribunal's practice concerning routine anonymisation from 30 March 2026 and considered the issue of his own motion because GB might not have known of that change.
5. The case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete rehearing before a freshly constituted panel. The successful appeal on a point of law did not indicate the likely outcome of the rehearing.

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal allowed and case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete rehearing before a freshly constituted panel.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): found that GB had limited capability for work but not limited capability for work-related activity.