![[2023] UKUT 157 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Reliability and credibility of witnesses - adequate explanation of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding?
Reliability and credibility of witnesses - adequate explanation of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding?
As the court said in English v EmeryReimbold & Strick at [21] (cited above), there may be situations where critical issues of fact can be explained adequately by saying one witness was preferred to another because, say, that witness’ memory was clearly better (and, indeed, that line of authority supports my dismissing ground a. in this case). However, the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding is not one that can be explained adequately in this way, since:
the evidence about ‘tutors’ advantage’ was evidence in the form of reasoned opinion about what may happen in the future – in contrast to, say, evidence of something of which Mr Hilton or Ms Walton had sensory experience (i.e. they heard it or saw it) (and that Mr Coombs had not);
the topic about which opinion was being expressed by the witnesses – what would be the likely effect on tutors and their pupils of disclosure of the requested information – was not one in which any of the witnesses (Mr Hilton, Ms Walton, or indeed Mr Coombs) had specific specialism – none of them was a tutor, or an expert in the tutoring business; Ms Walton and Mr Hilton were in businesses in the same area as that of tutors (i.e. education) but it was not a topic so specialised or technical that a “layman” (like Mr Coombs) could not have a rational and intelligible opinion;
Mr Coombs’ challenges to the opinions of Mr Hilton and Ms Walton were rational and intelligible – whether or not they were correct.
- Heading
- The appeal is allowed
- Directions
- REASONS FOR THE DECISION
- The Upper Tribunal proceedings
- Dicta on adequacy of reasons
- Ground a
- Ground b
- What was the evidence of ‘tutors’ advantage’?
- Was the evidence of ‘tutors’ advantage’ challenged?
- Did the FTT decision adequately explain why “overbearing weight” was to be given to ‘tutors’ advantage’ in the public interest balance test?
- Reasonably obvious from context why Mr Coombs’ challenge rejected?
- Reliability and credibility of witnesses - adequate explanation of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding?
- Relevance of “closed session” information?
- Materiality of the ‘tutors’ advantage’ finding?
- Conclusion on ground b
- Conclusions