![[2024] UKUT 406 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Disposal
I understand the Appellant’s desire to conclude her 2010 Act claims as soon as possible but I am simply not competent to determine the medico-legal issues that arise on these claims. I have no medical expertise and could not, for instance, properly determine the weight, if any, to be given to Dr Vassialadou’s and Dr Nwahbogu’s diagnostic reports.
The Appellant’s 2010 Act claims will now be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-determination (before a differently constituted panel of that Tribunal).
Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell
Authorised for issue on 4 July 2024
Corrected under rule 42 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 on 30 November 2024 to alter the pseudonyms used to describe the Appellant’s children. The alteration was requested by the children both of whom had attained the age of 16 when the Upper Tribunal’s decision was given.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal
- The Appellant’s claims are to be decided by a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal The First-tier Tribunal is to hold a hearing before deciding the Appellant’s claims
- Direction (3) above may be varied by direction given by the First-tier Tribunal
- Background
- Events on 19 April 2023 (re-listed hearing date)
- Tribunal’s finding that neither child was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010
- Legal framework
- Section B deals with the requirement for a person’s impairment to have a substantial adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-today activities. Section B identifies matters that might be rele
- Section E is about disabled children. E3 addresses education
- Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (2008 Rules)
- Grounds of appeal
- Appellant’s arguments
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Disposal
- The School’s arguments
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Conclusions
- Ground 2
- Conclusions