Keith Joyce v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A tribunal must give adequate reasons for its assessment of a claimant’s functional ability. Where it relies on proposed aids to conclude that activities can be completed without points, it must explain its reasoning and address material evidence about whether those aids work and whether the claimant can perform to the required standard. Failure to address that evidence may make the decision contradictory and the reasons inadequate.

Keith Joyce v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions concerned a claim for Personal Independence Payment based on blepharospasm, which caused spasms around the claimant’s eyes. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that he had the condition but dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of an award. It relied on strips or special glasses to keep his eyes open, while awarding no points for daily living activities.

Mr Joyce challenged the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasons, including its treatment of his evidence that the strips were ineffective and that relying on one eye or using a patch would affect his peripheral vision. The Secretary of State supported the appeal. The central issue was whether the Tribunal adequately explained its assessment of the proposed aids and the claimant’s ability to perform the activities to the required standard.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal made material errors of law. Its decision was set aside under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
2. The Tribunal’s reasons were contradictory. It relied on strips or glasses to find that the claimant could carry out daily living tasks using his eyes and hands, but did not explain why those items would not be aids or appliances whose use would attract points if reasonably required. It also failed to address his evidence that the strips were not strong enough to keep his eye open. Those omissions made the reasons inadequate.
3. The Tribunal also failed to explain how the claimant could carry out the relevant activities to the standard in regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013. It did not address his evidence that patching his right eye would leave him lacking peripheral vision and confidence, or explain how its conclusion met the requirements of safety, an acceptable standard, repeatability and reasonable time.
4. The Upper Tribunal remitted the appeal under section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 because further findings of fact were needed and the First-tier Tribunal was the appropriate forum. The rehearing must be oral and before a differently constituted panel. The panel must reconsider the issues raised, subject to its discretion under section 12(8)(a) of the Social Security Act 1998 to consider other issues that merit consideration.
5. The rehearing is confined to the circumstances at the date of the Secretary of State’s decision. Later evidence may be admitted if it relates to that time, as stated in R(DLA) 2 & 3/01. Any further evidence was to be sent within one month of the decision’s issue.

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision for material error of law and remitted the case for rehearing before a differently constituted panel.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): On 17 January 2025, dismissed the claimant’s appeal and confirmed the Secretary of State’s refusal of a Personal Independence Payment award.