{"id":562919,"date":"2026-04-15T00:26:49","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:26:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T00:26:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:26:49","slug":"mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/","title":{"rendered":"MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at North Shields dated 7 May 2025 under file reference SC232\/24\/00092 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing. The new tribunal must considerand make relevant findings as to whether or not the claimant satisfied the criteria to be awarded the daily living component and\/or the mobility component of personal independence payment from and including 3 August 2023 to and including 1 July 2024. In so doing the new tribunal should in particular have regard to the submissions of the Secretary of State dated 22 December 2025. This decision is made under section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. REASONS 1. This is an appeal, with my permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at North Shields on 7 May 2025. 2. I shall refer to the appellant hereafter as \u201cthe claimant\u201d. The respondent is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I shall refer to him hereafter as \u201cthe Secretary of State\u201d. I shall refer to the tribunal which sat on 7 May 2025 as \u201cthe Tribunal\u201d and the tribunal to which I am remitting the matter as \u201cthe new tribunal\u201d. 3. The claimant appealed against the decision of 2 November 2023 that he was entitled to 0 points for the daily living component and 0 points for the mobility component of personal independence payment. He was not therefore entitled to either component of personal independence payment from and including 3 August 2023. The decision was subsequently reconsidered, but not revised, on 13 December 2023. 4. The matter ultimately came before the Tribunal on 7 May 2025 when the claimant appeared and gave oral evidence. No presenting officer was in attendance. The appeal was refused. 5. The Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 2 points for the daily living component and 0 points for the mobility component of personal independence payment. He was not therefore entitled to the either component of personal independence payment from and including 3 August 2023. 6. On 7 November 2025 I acceded to the claimant\u2019s application and granted him permission to appeal. It seemed to me that there was an arguable case that the Tribunal had erred in law for the reasons set out in his grounds of appeal. 7. On 22 December 2025 the Secretary of State provided submissions and supported the appeal. 8. The claimant did not reply to those submissions, but given that the appeal is supported I waive the need for him to reply so as not to cause any further delay. 9. The Secretary of State confirmed that the claimant made a further claim for personal independence payment after the hearing on 7 May 2025 and was awarded the enhanced rate of daily living component and the standard rate of the mobility component of personal independence payment from and including 2 July 2024 to and including 31 July 2027. This appeal therefore only concerns the closed period from and including 3 August 2023 to and including 1 July 2024 10. Neither party has sought an oral hearing and I do not consider that it is necessary to hold one in order to resolve the matter. The Secretary of State has also consented to a decision without reasons under rule 40(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. 11. The Secretary of State submitted that \u201c4.2 It is my submission that the FtT has erred in law in both its fact finding and duty to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The conclusion from the FtT on how they assessed the claimant\u2019s functional abilities when dealing with the mobility activity 1 \u2013 Planning and following a journey appears limited in their reasoning. It seems that what the FtT has provided when reading the SOR, appears to be no more than a rehearsal of evidence and a conclusion without an explanation. 4.3 In dealing with the claimant\u2019s ground of appeal where it is asserted that the FtT did not have sufficient regard to the Practice Direction for vulnerable adult witnesses. I respectfully submit the FtT erred in law in failing to consider the guidelines set out in the Senior President of Tribunal Practice Direction of 30 October 2008 (Practice Direction (First tier and Upper Tribunals: Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Witnesses). 4.4 In this Practice Direction a sensitive witness is defined as \u201can adult witness where the quality of the evidence given by the witness is likely to be diminished by reason of fear or distress on the part of the witness in connection with giving evidence in the case.\u201d I submit that the evidence within the bundle in relation to the claimant\u2019s health conditions, would classify the appellant as a sensitive witness. 4.5 It is stated at paragraph 10 of the SOR that the FtT have acknowledged the claimant\u2019s health conditions stating: 10. \u201cHe has had depression for 20 years and has PTSD, chronic fatigue, ADHD, anxiety non-epileptic attack disorder, PPPD, expressive dyspraxia, speech problems, tics and suffers with memory lapses. All of these conditions and their cumulative effect were taken into consideration by the tribunal even if they are not specifically referred to\u201d. Due to the appellant\u2019s medical conditions, the FTT should have treated the claimant as a vulnerable adult. 4.6 In dealing with this case fairly and justly, the FtT should have given consideration to how to facilitate the hearing, in order to allow the claimant to participate fully. The failure to do so, is a breach of Reg 2(2)(c) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008, which provides that ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings. UT Judge Hemingway has referenced the case of RT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2019] UKUT 207 (AAC) which submits that: 6. \u201cThe Tribunal must consider how to facilitate the giving of any evidence by a child, vulnerable adult or sensitive witness. 7. It may be appropriate for the Tribunal to direct that the evidence should be given by telephone, video link or other means directed by the Tribunal, or to direct that a person be appointed for the purpose of the hearing who has the appropriate skills or experience in facilitating the giving of evidence by a child, vulnerable adult or sensitive witness. 8. This Practice Direction is made by the Senior President of Tribunals with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor. It is made in the exercise of powers conferred by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.\u201d In failing to make considerations to the claimant being a vulnerable adult, I respectfully submit that the FtT have erred in law on this ground. 4.7 In dealing with the claimant\u2019s ground of appeal regarding mobility activity 1 \u2013 Planning and following a journey where the claimant alleges that the FtT had a preoccupation with the claimant\u2019s ability to drive and failed to take an holistic approach, which I will address below. 4.8 The FtT when dealing with Mobility activity 1 -Planning and following a journey have noted the following at paragraph\u2019s 20 to 23 of the SOR: \u201c20. Activity 1 of the mobility component relates to planning and following journeys. The appellant, as previously noted, takes the children to and from school, collecting the younger one last from nursery when it\u2019s quieter and the traffic will have cleared. He was able to drive himself to a psychiatric appointment at St George\u2019s Hospital in Morpeth \u2013 he had never been before but was able to follow the sat nav, putting the postcode in himself that was in the appointment letter. He dislikes taxis owing to the hit and run incident referred to earlier. He avoids public transport because he doesn\u2019t like crowds and chooses not to go out socially \u2013 just takes the children to school and attends appointments. In his PIP Questionnaire in response to the question on daily living activity 9 the appellant stated that he would use public transport to get around if he was going out, but in the hearing he said this was incorrect and he did not know why he had written it. He said in the hearing that he would suffer an anxiety attack thinking about going out so would order food from Uber Eats rather than shop. He went to Centre Parcs on holiday with his parents in October 2023 but says he \u2018pretty much stayed in the chalet\u2019. 21. Applying its findings concerning the appellant\u2019s medical conditions, the tribunal considered that the appellant would have the cognitive ability to plan and follow the route of a journey and there were no sensory issues that would limit him in doing so. The appellant suffers with anxiety however his medication reviews suggested his mental health generally had not been as severe at the date of the decision under appeal as it had become subsequently. He was prescribed propranolol which can be used as an anti-anxiety medication however this was in relation to his diagnosis of PPPD. The appellant had been able to undertake journeys when he needed to, for example taking the children to school and attending appointments. He had managed an unfamiliar journey by car by following his sat nav. Understandably the appellant had issues with taxis following the hit and run incident and having his own car he did not require public transport. 22. The tribunal considered whether, as a consequence of his anxiety, the appellant would have been able to use public transport without suffering overwhelming psychological distress. This is a \u2018high bar\u2019 essentially meaning that the appellant would be so overwhelmed he would be unable to function. There were no specific examples to draw on but applying its findings as to the appellant\u2019s medical conditions, the tribunal considered that at the date of the decision the appellant would not have satisfied this test. 23. For activity 1 therefore, the tribunal considered that there were no cognitive or sensory issues, or issues with anxiety, of sufficient severity at the date of the decision under appeal to give rise to points.\u201d 4.9 Whilst it is correct that the claimant did state in his PIP2 questionnaire form at page 21 that: \u201c\u2026I cannot get into taxis due to a hit and run, and rely upon public transport to get around if I am going out.\u201dI would firstly note that this was in relation to going out in social situations and it was only if (my emphasis) he was going out. Also, as noted the claimant did state in his reply that he will avoid social situations. Furthermore, as noted at paragraph 20 of the SOR (repeated above), the claimant disputed that fact, which the FtT do not explore further. This I submit leaves one to question how often the claimant used public transport, if at all? It appears the FtT have failed to use its inquisitorial function to establish this fact and have simply repeated the claimant\u2019s statement in relation to possibly going out to socialise. As such the reasons in this regard are inadequate and further findings of facts are required. 4.10 Furthermore, I note that the FtT have stated at paragraph 21 of the SOR, (repeated above), that: \u201c\u2026The appellant suffers with anxiety however his medication reviews suggested his mental health generally had not been as severe at the date of the decision under appeal as it had become subsequently..\u201d and concluded at paragraph 23 of the SOR that: \u201c\u2026the tribunal considered that there were no cognitive or sensory issues, or issues with anxiety, of sufficient severity at the date of the decision under appeal to give rise to points.\u201d. 4.11 The FtT in their reasoning (repeated above) appear to have simply summarised the evidence before them and then concluded that at the date of the decision under appeal, the claimant did not satisfy across mobility activity 1 providing inadequate reasoning to support and explain how they reached their conclusion that the claimant was able to plan and follow a journey in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (the PIP Regs 2013). 4.12 In relation to the claimant\u2019s anxiety, I note that the claimant\u2019s GP had recorded at pages 26 to 29 that the claimant\u2019s disabling conditions are Depression and anxiety, possible PTSD, previous head injury, possible post-concussion syndrome. It is recorded under History of conditions that the claimant is currently receiving support from mental health worker regarding the depression and anxiety, possible PTSD post Trauma. Also, that a referral was made to talking therapies for further assessment and treatment. The claimant\u2019s Symptoms and variability are recorded at page 27 as his mental health is low mood, difficulty with sleep, nightmares, anger, flash backs and reported in connection with his head injury that he has memory issues, brain fog, headache, struggles to get words out, fatigue. 4.13 Although the claimant\u2019s mental health was noted by the GP at the date of decision and given that it was recorded that the claimant was receiving support from mental health worker regarding their depression and anxiety, possible PTSD post Trauma. Also, that a referral was made to talking therapies for further assessment and treatment. However, the FtT appear to have placed undue weight on the fact that the claimant was worse after the date of decision when in fact the difficulties were present at the date of decision. 4.14 Notwithstanding the FtT\u2019s findings at paragraph\u2019s 22 to 23 of the SOR (repeated above), it appears that the FtT may have drawn adverse inferences from evidence about the claimant\u2019s mental health difficulties, the treatment that the claimant may or may not have received, specifically given their reliance upon that the difficulties were not as severe at the date of decision. However, could it be that the claimant was (as noted) being referred and assessments to be made, therefore may have had the difficulties which following assessments are noted as worsening? It is my submission that it is unclear what findings the FtT made and whether all the evidence had been considered. As such, it appears that the FtT have failed to engage with the evidence and further findings of facts and adequate reasons are required. 4.15 I would also note that whilst the FtT have stated at paragraph 21 of the SOR (repeated above) that \u201c\u2026The appellant had been able to undertake journeys when he needed to, for example taking the children to school and attending appointments. He had managed an unfamiliar journey by car by following his sat nav. Understandably the appellant had issues with taxis following the hit and run incident and having his own car he did not require public transport.\u201d. However, it is unclear if the FtT considered and analysed all the evidence. 4.16 It is noteworthy that at page 37 the HealthCare Professional (HCP) stated: \u201cHe is not comfortable using public transport like a Taxi as this is what hit him in February\u201d. This I suggest appears at odds with the FtT\u2019s findings that: \u201c\u2026having his own car he did not require public transport.\u201d. Additionally, the FtT do not appear to discuss the claimant\u2019s Universal Credit assessment and the details at page 68 to 69 where the following is recorded: \u201cGets anxious about taxis because of his recent head injury. He is also anxious in crowds and around new people. Had panic attacks in the last 6 months. They tend to be in relation to taxis or crowded places. Tries to just avoid situations that trigger panic attacks. When he gets a panic attack he cannot breathe and becomes sweaty\u2026 Is anxious leaving the home because of previous head injuries\u2026\u201d 4.17 Notwithstanding the FtT\u2019s reasons at paragraph 20 to 23 of the SOR (repeated above), it is unclear what the FtT made of the medical evidence that he is anxious, has panic attacks, struggles with going outside, crowds, in not comfortable using public transport, giving a taxi as an example. In failing to make adequate findings of facts with regards to planning and following journeys and failing to give adequate reasons as to why none of the scoring descriptors may apply for mobility activity 1, I submit that this is a further error in law. 4.18 Conversely, it is my submission that the FtT\u2019s conclusions and reasons demonstrate that it has failed to consider relevant evidence, and its own findings of the claimant\u2019s restrictions. Taking into account the FtT accepted in parts the claimant is affected by mental health difficulties and lack of motivation and requires support, it was incumbent upon the FtT to further cogitate the claimant\u2019s and the medical evidence, particularly given that there is evidence of the claimant\u2019s longstanding mental health difficulties and is supported by services. In failing to do so, this I submit is an error of law. 4.19 Although the FtT is entitled to give weighting to whatever evidence that it chooses, where there is conflicting evidence, it must in the first instance explore and consider it in a holistic manner and provide sufficient reasons explaining why it preferred the evidence that it had. In this appeal the FtT does not appear to have done that. There appears to be a distinct lack of reference to the evidence provided by the claimant and the medical evidence which demonstrate the co-morbidities and nature of his health conditions. Therefore, it could be said that had the FtT given appropriate consideration to all the evidence, including accurately identifying the mental health, lack of motivation and effects of the claimant\u2019s conditions, the FtT may have considered the claimant\u2019s limitations. As such, I submit that the FtT have failed to give adequate reasons as to why evidence in parts was not accepted when deciding what points were award. 4.20 In view of the above, Iam in agreement with UT Judge West that the inadequacy of reasons makes it difficult for a claimant to know whether the FtT applied the correct legal tests in assessing the evidence, making its findings of fact, and arriving at its decision. Notwithstanding my support of the above grounds, I respectfully submit that any further grounds raised by the claimant will be subsumed by the newly constituted FtT.\u201d 12. For the reasons identified by the Secretary of State, I am satisfied that there was the Tribunal made errors of law which were material to the decision and for that reason the decision of the Tribunal should be set aside. 13. In the circumstances I do not need to consider whether the Tribunal made any other errors of law. 14. I am satisfied that the resolution of any other grounds of appeal will fall to be subsumed at the hearing before the new tribunal. 15. I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal. I remit the matter to a new tribunal which should conduct a complete rehearing of the matter. 16. I must stress that the fact that this appeal to the Upper Tribunal has succeeded should not be taken as any indication as to the outcome of the rehearing by the new tribunal. It is quite possible that the new tribunal may end up effectively coming to the same decision as the previous Tribunal, namely that the claimant was not entitled to either component of personal independence payment from and including 3 August 2023 to and including 1 July 2024. 17. Alternatively, it is possible that the new tribunal might take a different view of the facts from that of the Tribunal and reach the conclusion that in fact the claimant was entitled to one or other or both components of personal independence payment from and including 3 August 2023 to and including 1 July 2024. 18. It is for the new tribunal itself to decide which of these alternative options open to it applies, depending on the view it takes of the facts and providing it makes proper findings of fact and gives adequate reasons. It would not be appropriate for me to express any opinion either way on the merits of the appeal. 19. The following directions apply to the hearing before the new tribunal: (1) The new tribunal should not involve any member who was a member of the Tribunal involved in the hearing of the appeal. (2) The new tribunal must considerand make relevant findings as to whether or not the claimant satisfied the criteria to be awarded the daily living component and\/or the mobility component of personal independence payment from and including 3 August 2023 to and including 1 July 2024. In so doing the new tribunal should in particular have regard to the submissions of the Secretary of State dated 22 December 2025. Mark West Judge of the Upper Tribunal Signed on the original on 9 March 2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at North Shields dated 7 May 2025 under file reference SC232\/24\/00092 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing. The new tribunal must considerand…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[9033],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7633,7643,7622,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-562919","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-upper-tribunal-administrative-appeals-chamber","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-claimant","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nMH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at North Shields dated 7 May 2025 under file reference SC232\/24\/00092 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing. The new tribunal must considerand...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"17 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T22:26:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions","og_description":"The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at North Shields dated 7 May 2025 under file reference SC232\/24\/00092 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing. The new tribunal must considerand...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"17 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/","name":"MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T22:26:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/562919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=562919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=562919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=562919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=562919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=562919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=562919"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=562919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}