BF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP): [2020] UKUT 300 (AAC)

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision of Judge Poynter on 18 June 2020.

• From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
• Published: 9 November 2020

• Categories: Tribunal procedure and practice
• Sub-categories: Tribunal procedure and practice - evidence, Tribunal procedure and practice - other and Tribunal procedure and practice - set aside applications
• Judges: Poynter, R
• Decision date: 18 June 2020

Read the full decision in .

Judicial Summary

Tribunal procedure and practice (including Upper Tribunal)바카라 사이트擲et aside applications바카라 사이트擶hether acceptance of evidence that has been obtained in breach of administrative procedures renders decisions of the First Tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal liable to be set aside for procedural irregularity under rule 37 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 or rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008바카라 사이트擝F v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2019] UKUT 420 (AAC) (formerly CE/1285/2018) not followed. Tribunal procedure and practice (including Upper Tribunal)바카라 사이트擡vidence바카라 사이트擶hether evidence that has been obtained in breach of administrative procedures is admissible before the FTT바카라 사이트擝F v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2019] UKUT 420 (AAC) (formerly CE/1285/2018) not followed. Tribunal procedure and practice (including Upper Tribunal)바카라 사이트擮ther바카라 사이트擶hether, in the absence of a direction under rule 15(2)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008, and in the absence of irrationality, the Upper Tribunal has power to direct the FTT how to weigh relevant evidence바카라 사이트擝F v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2019] UKUT 420 (AAC) (formerly CE/1285/2018) not followed.

Published 9 November 2020