Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Adesina
Has anyone ever successfully run an Adesina argument for an appeal that’s passed the deadline?
I’ve got a corker of a retro verification case but it’s out of time… They were stuck abroad thanks to the pandemic, no real advice, no real English skills so didn’t realise they needed to appeal.
I’m minded to have a crack at it.
Like “hen’s teeth” I would imagine and I have certainly never run one….. and I am put off largely due to the position that (according to them wot knows - CPAG included) the likely rarity of success with the ‘Adesina principle’ is that the right to a fair trial may indeed require that any appeal made after expiry of an ‘absolute’ time limit (especially one with “good cause” for lateness and even very meritorious grounds whether in benefit law or not) is admitted, but even then only in exceptional cases and where a claimant did everything they could to appeal on time. Not sure what you have described involves meeting that “did everything they could to appeal on time” threshold…like you say though, it may be worth a pop (but probably quite a lengthy and resource-eating process to get through all the obvious hoops, I would suggest?
I’ve never run it except as a backup to a better argument and GJ v SSWP (PIP) [2022] UKUT 340 (AAC), especially paras 59-61, is not encouraging.
If retrospective verification, I assume we’re talking UC?
And if we’re talking UC, won’t the original decision notice be defective in as much as it will not have given the claimant notice of the potential for requesting a late revision/MR under regs. 5 (1)(b)(iv) and 6 UC D&A Regs? And as reg. 7 (3)(a) requires that a claimant be given notice of the time limit (i.e. all of the time limits) under reg. 5(1), that omission means that time has not started to run.
So it’s that argument, bolstered by a contention that had the claimant been given notice of the potential for requesting a late revision, they’d have done so.
That’s always worked for me, but of course it does require that the claimant did not ask for MR/revision and then subsequently missed the time limit for appeal.