![[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Remittal to DBS for a new decision
Applying the test in DBS v AB [2021] EWCA Civ 1575 at [73], this does not seem to us a case where the only decision DBS could lawfully reach in the light of the law and the facts as found by us, would be to remove JW from the barred lists. DBS is the arbiter of “appropriateness” of listing and it is now for it to make a new decision as to whether it is appropriate to include JW in the barred lists, based on all the relevant facts, as we have found them.
For similar reasons, it seems to us fair and just in this case that JW remain in the lists, pending DBS’s new decision: it would be in no one’s interests, we feel, to direct JW’s removal, only to have her re-included upon a new decision by DBS. We trust that DBS will make the new decision as soon as it reasonably can.
Zachary Citron
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Suzanna Jacoby
Roger Graham
Members of the Upper Tribunal
Approved for release on 9 August 2024
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal. The Respondent made a mistake on a point of law or in a finding of fact it made and on which its decision of 12 December 2022 (reference DBS6
- DBS’s decision
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- The grant of permission to appeal
- The evidence before the Upper Tribunal
- Background facts
- Review of JW’s evidence on disputed matters
- JW’s role at the home
- The requirements for Miss X’s personal care
- Miss X’s occasional “behaviour”
- The incidents where JW held the door to Miss X’s room closed
- Our analysis of mistake of fact and/or law in DBS’s decision
- Was important and relevant context omitted?
- Does this omission in DBS’s decision amount to a mistake of law or fact?
- The grounds enumerated in JW’s “perfected ground of appeal”
- Conclusions