EBA v The Advocate General for Scotland: SCS 10 Sep 2010

(Inner House) The petitioner wished to appeal against refusal of disability living allowance. Her appeal to the first tier tribunal was rejected, and her request to the Upper Tribunal for leave to appeal was refused. When, she then sought leave to bring judicial review of that refusal, it was said that decisions of the UT were not subject to review save in limited circumstances (excess of jurisdiction or unfairness of procedure).
Held: The court allowed the reclaiming motion, refused the cross-appeal and remitted the case to the Lord Ordinary to proceed as accords.
Lord President, Lord Kingearth, Lord Brodie
[2010] ScotCS CSIH – 78, 2010 SLT 1047, 2010 GWD 31-634, [2010] STC 2689, 2010 SCLR 759, 2011 SC 70, [2010] STI 2617, [2010] CSIH 78
Bailii
Citing:
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
All Public Law Challenges are For a Nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
At Outer HouseEBA, Re Judicial Review SCS 31-Mar-2010
The petitioner claimed disability living allowance. Her claim was refused, and eventually also at the Upper Tribunal, of whose decision she now sought judicial review.
Held: The Upper Tribunal being designated as a court of superior record. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromCart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Appeal fromEBA v Advocate General for Scotland SC 21-Jun-2011
The appellant had sought to challenge refusal of disability living allowance. Ultimately her request a judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decion was rejected on the basis that the UT, being a court of superior record, was not susceptible to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.424090