Cascading consequence but DWP has own decision-making process.
Universal Credit closed as a consequence of a winding-up order that cascaded from void proceedings. Disability-related inability to comply with requirements imposed by void orders.
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
DWP applied its own rules correctly based on information available.
UC sanctions cascaded from a winding-up that was tainted by EA 2010 failures. DWP's own system worked: decision maker Connor was removed for gaslighting. But the underlying sanctions remain based on void proceedings. The fruit of the poisoned tree: sanctions founded on void orders are themselves without foundation.
DWP decisions are independent of court proceedings and must be challenged through the tribunal system.
The DWP decision is not challenged in isolation but as part of the cascade from void proceedings. If the winding-up was void (wrong statute, wrong court, during MHCM), then the consequences flowing from it (UC closure, sanctions) are also tainted. The JR asks the court to recognise the causal chain, not to review the DWP decision on its own merits.
Fallback: DWP Connor already removed for gaslighting (system worked for DWP). Use as contrast with courts where no accountability exists.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.