![[2024] UKUT 311 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
It is for all of the above reasons that I allow this judicial review to the extent of quashing the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remitting to that tribunal.
CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS
I direct as follows—
The case must be reheard entirely afresh by the First-tier Tribunal.
The First-tier Tribunal panel which rehears this case afresh must contain no-one who was on the panel which decided the case on 6 December 2023.
I remind the First-tier Tribunal however that CICA wish potentially to make a fresh decision. The First-tier Tribunal might consider it appropriate to enquire of the parties whether they would like a stay for CICA to consider whether to make a fresh decision.
I remind CICA of Ms H’s request—
“I would like to respectfully request that, should CICA propose any new offer or submission as this process continues, they notify me directly via email as well. This would allow me to carefully consider any proposals without being surprised by a submission presented at the court hearing itself.
I believe that early communication would help to avoid any unnecessary prolongation of this matter, especially if a new offer or proposal from CICA is something that I could potentially accept. My concern is to avoid a situation where, after another First-tier Tribunal hearing, I could find myself in the same position a year from now”.
Rachel Perez
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
2 October 2024
- Heading
- I allow this judicial review to the extent of remittal
- Introduction
- Factual and procedural background
- First-tier Tribunal appeal
- Grant of permission to bring judicial review
- Submissions after grant of permission
- Law
- Analysis
- Error by misquoting the test in Note 2 of the Tariff to the scheme and by appearing to assume that, without a substantial adverse impact on Ms H’s day-to-day activities, the DMI was present but not pe
- Error in failing to seek a further report from Dr Holt on the issues on which the First-tier Tribunal found Dr Holt’s report lacking
- Error in failing to find that Dr Holt did report sufficiently on functioning
- Error in failing to find that Dr Holt’s report was evidence of permanence
- Error in failing to take sufficient account of, and to give sufficient weight to, Dr Alachkar’s first two reports
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to evidence from years before Ms H made her CIC claim that showed a lack of day-to-day functioning
- Error in failing adequately to take into account, and in failing to give sufficient weight to, evidence that Ms H left school at 13 and then spent the rest of the time in her bedroom
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to the statement of Ms H’s partner
- Error in placing too much weight on the contraceptive implant
- Error in failing to ask Ms H why she has the contraceptive implant
- Error in placing too much weight on the lack of GP entries as to sexual dysfunction
- Error in mischaracterising Ms H’s evidence as to her sexual relationship with her partner and impliedly inferring that she was lying about that relationship
- Error in making a finding not supported by the evidence as to the reason for Ms H stopping driving immediately after passing the driving test
- Error in failing to give sufficient weight to Ms H’s reminder to the tribunal that she had grown up at her Nana’s
- Conclusions