[2024] UKUT 387 (AAC)

Ground (4) in the application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings related to supposed inconsistencies in Ms Konstantinidou’s report. That ground said that the applicant and her mother were asked questions by this doctor and answered whatever was asked and that Ms W was not asked about driving. The grounds also explained that Ms W did go on holiday with her parents and relatives and the parents paid for everyone except for the aunt and uncle.

The way that Ground (4) was framed did not disclose any arguable error of law. I did not grant permission to rely on that ground.

However, I said in granting permission that the errors of law that I have identified above could on remittal mean that at least the prognosis in Ms Konstantinidou’s report will be accepted. That would at least take the effects with treatment to 31 July 2024 and so into a higher award bracket.

Moreover, the First-tier Tribunal might on remittal direct CICA to commission a further report, to address any persisting perception of lacuna or of inconsistencies in the original report.

It is for the reasons at paragraphs 22 to 34, 37 and 38 above that I find the First-tier Tribunal materially to have erred in law.

The parties agreed to remittal to the First-tier Tribunal. I consider that to be the appropriate course.