[2025] UKUT 107 (AAC)

The Tribunal may have made an error of law in evaluating the appellant’s evidence as vague when she answered the questions she was asked (and the Tribunal did not follow them up);

It was not clear how the Tribunal had applied regulation 4(2A) to the appellant’s oral evidence about carrying out PIP activities. Upper Tribunal Judge Butler listed examples of this in paragraph 6 of her decision granting permission to appeal;

The Tribunal may have made an error of law in terms of the adequacy of reasons for the decisions it reached; and

There may have been procedural irregularity in the Tribunal asking the appellant closed questions and then not following these up to explore, or clarify, her answers.