Mohammed Yusuf Patel v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A tribunal cannot rehear a dispute already decided by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction. A statement of reasons request made in time does not require an extension of time. Although refusing an extension on that mistaken basis may involve an error of law, the Upper Tribunal may leave the decision in place where a statement can no longer realistically be prepared and the proposed challenge has no merit.

For late tribunal applications of this kind, the relevant inquiry considers the seriousness or significance of the delay, the reasons for it, and all the circumstances, including the merits. A stricter test for an absolute statutory bar to a first-instance appeal does not apply. An oral hearing is required only where fairness calls for one in light of the case and what is at stake.

The Secretary of State decided in 2011 that Mohammed Yusuf Patel was not entitled to income support during a period abroad and had been overpaid. He maintained that he was entitled to incapacity benefit, which carried a more generous temporary absence rule. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed his appeals in 2012. Mr Patel had emailed the FTT in time seeking its full reasons, but the request was not actioned.

In 2025, the FTT struck out his renewed appeals against the Secretary of State’s decisions, refused to extend time for a statement of reasons, and refused to extend time to apply for permission to appeal the 2012 decision. Mr Patel appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT). The issues included the FTT’s jurisdiction to rehear the original disputes, the consequences of the unprocessed request for reasons, and whether the 2012 decision could still be challenged.

1. Strike-out. The appeal against the FTT’s strike-out was dismissed. The Secretary of State’s 2011 decisions had already been litigated and dismissed by the FTT in 2012. They were res judicata, so the FTT had no jurisdiction to rehear them and was entitled to strike out the renewed appeals under rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008.

2. Statement of reasons. The FTT had materially erred by failing to recognise that Mr Patel’s email of 29 August 2012 was a timely request for a statement of reasons. There was therefore no need to extend time. The appeal on this issue was allowed.

3. Relief from the error. Under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the UT had discretion not to set aside the FTT’s decision. It declined to do so because the FTT no longer had the relevant papers, the judge had retired, the Department’s records were limited, and Mr Patel could not provide a complete set of documents. Preparing reasons was unrealistic. The proposed challenge also had no prospect of success: the benefit records showed income support payments, the recorded weekly rate exceeded the possible incapacity benefit rate, and documents referring to incapacity benefit were consistent with incapacity credits only. The FTT’s decision was left in place.

4. Late application to the FTT. The refusal to extend time to seek permission to appeal the 2012 decision was outside the permission granted for this appeal. For completeness, the UT explained that the Adesina v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] 1 WLR 3156 test concerned an absolute statutory time bar preventing an appeal to a first-instance tribunal and did not fit this case. The relevant three-stage approach considers the seriousness or significance of the breach, the reasons for delay, and all the circumstances, including the merits. The ten-year delay was serious, the reasons were unpersuasive, and the proposed appeal had no merit. The UT concluded that the FTT would still have refused the extension.

5. Late application to the UT and hearing. Under rule 21(7) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, Mr Patel had to explain why his application to the FTT was late, and the UT could admit it only if it was in the interests of justice. Neither condition was met, so the late application for permission to appeal the 2012 decisions was refused. Applying rule 34 and the fairness approach in R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2014] AC 1115 at [2(i)], the UT also decided the appeal on the papers: the written submissions were clear and an oral hearing would only delay matters.

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), [2026] UKUT 341 (AAC) : dismissed the appeal against the strike-out, allowed the appeal concerning the refusal to extend time for a statement of reasons but left that FTT decision in place, and refused to admit the late application for permission to appeal the 2012 decisions.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber), 6 June 2025: struck out the renewed appeals against the Secretary of State’s decisions, refused to extend time for a statement of reasons, and refused to extend time to seek permission to appeal the 2012 decision.
3. First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber), 14 August 2012: dismissed Mr Patel’s appeals against the Secretary of State’s 2011 entitlement and overpayment decisions.