“the claimant is absent from Great Britain solely— (i) in connection with arrangements made for the treatment of the claimant for a disease or bodily or mental disablement directly related to the claimant's limited capability for work which commenced before leaving Great Britain”
“in the case of universal credit, a superseding decision made on the ground of a change of circumstances takes effect from the first day of the assessment period in which that change occurred or is expected to occur.”
“An appeal notice may not be amended without the permission of the appeal court.”
“74. … an appellant who has obtained permission to appeal and wishes to add to or otherwise amend his grounds must make a formal application to do so underCPR r 52.17 , as soon as he reasonably can. Grounds of appeal cannot be covertly amended, for example by including changes to them in the skeleton argument … 75. Compliance with the rules will ensure that appeal hearings are properly focused, as they must be. Although of course the merits of an application to amend grounds of appeal will necessarily be fact-specific, where an appellant proposes substantial changes to the grounds of appeal from those upon which he has obtained permission to appeal but has made no application — or no reasonably prompt application — to amend, he should not expect an appeal court to be sympathetic. Appeal courts have a variety of sanctions at their command should a party fail to comply with important mandatory procedural rules that apply to appeals.”
“36. The Secretary of State also submits that, if the Tribunal had taken the correct approach, it would have been bound to infer that part of the reason for the absence was the fact that the Almeria property is NJ and Dr J’s second home and thus one of NJ’s reasons for absence must be to live in and maintain a family home (or, at a minimum, to accompany her husband while he does so). However, again, the Tribunal was rightly focusing on NJ’s reasons for extended periods of absence. The Tribunal was clearly alive to the Secretary of State’s argument the fact that the property is their second home meant that the claimant must have more than one purpose in staying there for extended periods. Those facts are in the judgment, but the Tribunal rejects the Secretary of State’s case in that respect for essentially the same reasons as it rejects the Secretary of State’s case about holidays. As the judge puts it at [31], “I am wholly satisfied that this is not a case of a couple simply spending time holidaying in their second home … the climate at their home in Almeria provides respite from her condition as exposure to sunlight increases her serotonin levels, thus alleviating some of her symptoms, and for that specific reason they seek to spend extended periods of time there”. 37. While many Tribunals would not have reached the same conclusion, I am not persuaded that this Tribunal’s decision was perverse, particularly given its findings as to the severity of the claimant’s OCD condition, and the credibility of NJ’s and Dr J’s evidence as to the positive impact on her of spending time in Almeria. These factors together explain the Tribunal’s conclusion that in this particular case the sole reason for NJ spending extended periods of time in Almeria was to alleviate her condition and that holidaying or maintaining of their second home was not part of her reasons for spending an extended period of time there. The fact that by staying for extended periods they may also enjoy the opportunity of holidaying or maintaining their second home does not prevent the Tribunal from concluding that the sole purpose of their extended stays was the treatment. Provided a Tribunal is satisfied for adequate reasons (as this Tribunal was at [21]) that these were merely incidental benefits (“effects”, to use Lord Brightman’s term in Mallalieu) rather than the purpose of the extended stay, there is nothing wrong in law with the Tribunal reaching the conclusion that this Tribunal did in this case.”
“77. This lack of relevant evidence is likely to have contributed to the failure on the part of the Court of Appeal to focus on the essential issue which was whether the operation of the costs rule in its application to Imperium’s participation in these legal proceedings infringed any right of Imperium under article 6(1). Instead, it focussed on the more abstract question of whether the legislation was compatible with article 6(1), as if it were an ab ante challenge to the legislation. 78. While it is possible in certain circumstances to bring a general challenge to legislation on ECHR grounds, this is exceptional and a violation of the ECHR is usually required to be established by reference to the manner in which the law has been applied to the claimant in the specific circumstances of the case. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland, a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights observed: “460. The Convention does not provide for the institution of an actio popularis. The Court’s task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, for instance, Roman Zakharov v Russia [GC], (Application No 47143/06), para 164, ECtHR 2015, with further references). Accordingly, a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals must be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. The Convention does not permit individuals or groups of individuals to complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention (see Aksu v. Turkey [GC], (Application Nos 4149/04 and 41029/04), paras 50-51, ECtHR 2012).” 79. It was Imperium’s case that the 2018 Law should be read down so as to be given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights (under article 4 HRL) or alternatively that it should be declared incompatible with Imperium’s Convention rights (under article 5 HRL). In either case, it is necessary to focus on the effect of the 2018 Law as applied to Imperium’s case. In R (Z) v Hackney London Borough Council[2020] UKSC 40 ;[2020] 1 WLR 4327 Lord Sales explained (at para 114) with regard tosection 3 of the United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998 (the equivalent provision to article 4 HRL): “The proper approach to construction is that legislation should be read and given effect in a particular case according to its ordinary meaning, unless the person who is affected by it can show that this would be incompatible with their Convention rights under the [Human Rights Act 1998 ] … as applied to their case. Only then do the special interpretive obligations under section 3(1) of the [Human Rights Act] … come into play to authorise the court to search for a conforming interpretation at variance with the ordinary meaning of the legislation.”
“But in my view the court should be extremely slow to make a declaration of incompatibility at the instance of an individual litigant with whose own rights the provision in question is not incompatible. Any other approach is to invite a multitude of unmeritorious claims.” “460. The Convention does not provide for the institution of an actio popularis. The Court’s task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, for instance, Roman Zakharov v Russia [GC], (Application No 47143/06), para 164, ECtHR 2015, with further references). Accordingly, a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals must be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. The Convention does not permit individuals or groups of individuals to complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention (see Aksu v. Turkey [GC], (Application Nos 4149/04 and 41029/04), paras 50-51, ECtHR 2012).” “The proper approach to construction is that legislation should be read and given effect in a particular case according to its ordinary meaning, unless the person who is affected by it can show that this would be incompatible with their Convention rights under the [Human Rights Act 1998 ] … as applied to their case. Only then do the special interpretive obligations under section 3(1) of the [Human Rights Act] … come into play to authorise the court to search for a conforming interpretation at variance with the ordinary meaning of the legislation.” “But in my view the court should be extremely slow to make a declaration of incompatibility at the instance of an individual litigant with whose own rights the provision in question is not incompatible. Any other approach is to invite a multitude of unmeritorious claims.”