Roman Hawksby v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A tribunal may accept evidence without corroboration. It must assess that evidence, assign the weight it considers appropriate in light of all the evidence, and explain its findings. The absence of supporting evidence does not itself prevent acceptance, although the tribunal is not required to accept the evidence. Where a tribunal is concerned that the available evidence is insufficient to decide an appeal fairly and justly, it should consider adjourning for further evidence and explain its decision to proceed without doing so.

Roman Hawksby, who has developmental delay, is non-verbal and lacks a sense of danger, appealed a decision awarding him Disability Living Allowance at the middle rate for care but no mobility component. His mother, Rebecca Hawksby, was his appointee and gave evidence of his night-time care and supervision needs. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the papers, referring to the lack of corroborative or supporting evidence about those needs.

After the First-tier Tribunal refused permission to appeal, the Upper Tribunal granted permission and considered whether the Tribunal had wrongly treated corroboration as necessary and whether it should have considered seeking further evidence before deciding the appeal.

1. The appeal was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal made material errors of law by treating the lack of corroboration as a reason to reject the appointee’s evidence and by failing adequately to address whether further evidence was needed.

2. There is no legal requirement for corroboration before evidence may be accepted. A tribunal has a broad discretion to assess the evidence and decide what weight it deserves. It need not accept the appointee’s account, but it cannot reject it merely because no medical professional or other witness supports it. It must evaluate the evidence as a whole, make the necessary findings and explain its decision with adequate clarity.

3. Where a tribunal is concerned that the evidence is insufficient to decide the appeal fairly and justly in accordance with the overriding objective, it should consider adjourning to obtain further evidence. Here, the First-tier Tribunal referred to insufficient evidence but did not explain why proceeding without seeking more evidence best served the overriding objective. Its bare references to rules 2 and 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 did not supply that explanation. The errors were material because the appeal’s outcome could have been different.

4. The decision was set aside under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and remitted under section 12(2)(b)(i). Because further findings of fact were needed, the appeal must be reheard by a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal at an oral hearing. The rehearing is a complete reconsideration, subject to the Tribunal’s discretion under section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998. It must consider circumstances at the date of the Secretary of State’s decision; later evidence is admissible if it relates to that time: R(DLA) 2 & 3/01. The new panel is not bound by the previous decision.

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) — After the First-tier Tribunal refused permission to appeal, permission was renewed and granted. The appeal was allowed, the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the case was remitted for rehearing.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) — On 13 November 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Secretary of State’s decision awarding the middle rate of the care component and no mobility component.