[2024] UKUT 84 (AAC)

words in the scheme were intended to have their ordinary everyday meaning, contrary to other words which could have very specific legal meanings. The paragraph did permit discretion as to which facts to consider as relevant, thus indicating that a narrow interpretation was probably not appropriate or intended.

The Upper Tribunal should find that “other payments” and “other resultant losses” meant “distinct from parental services as previously mentioned” and so additional to payments for parental services.

If such a conclusion were reached, the fact that the Tribunal appeared to be encouraged or reassured as to its definition of “resultant from” by the examples in the Guidance was to be ignored. The footing was unsafe from the outset; some basis later in the reasoning did not make good such a foundational flaw.

For the avoidance of doubt when considering how the word “other” operates, the preceding concept was in paragraph 42(a) “parental services”. The scheme used the conjunction “and”, and so that was plainly the operative concept.

It could not be said that one should abandon paragraph 42(a) and look directly to the start of paragraph 42 and therefore read “other payments” and “other resultant losses” as following on from that. That was nonsensical. The words “other payment” and “other resultant losses” must therefore be with reference to the payment for parental services as set out at paragraph 42(a).

Further, paragraph 42 did not limit the scope of the compensation to losses which were resultant from the loss parental services. The text in paragraph 42 was a direction on eligibility, namely that if the claimant is a qualifying claimant, under the age of 18 years and in fact dependent on the deceased for parental services, then the paragraph was to be considered and applied to him. That was typical of the CICA scheme(s); one must first be eligible under a paragraph before it applied. It did not and could not mean that any one of those eligibility factors was the governing factor to which the remainder of the paragraph must be linked.

In summary, it was unclear how or why the Tribunal considered that a plain reading of “other resultant losses” meant “resultant from”. Firstly, it was contrary to the definition of ‘other’ within the ordinary everyday meaning of the word and the sentence structure of the paragraph. Secondly, removing paragraph 42(a) from the equation did not assist in finding the logic. Thirdly, the opening lines of paragraph 42 related to eligibility to claim under the paragraph; there was no evidence that the drafter of the scheme intended questions of eligibility to be the linking factor which must be established in the types of payment.