[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)

The “reasons” section of the permission decision (reproduced at paragraph 8 above) explained why permission to appeal was given - in short, because it was arguable that DBS had made a mistake in its core factual findings, and/or on a point of law, by omitting important and relevant context. The permission decision gave four examples, based on the large number of factual assertions made in the “perfected grounds of appeal” document submitted by JW, of what these omitted relevant and important contextual facts could be. Accordingly, in this section of our decision, we shall address (1) whether important and relevant factual context was omitted in DBS’s core factual findings; and (2) whether in so doing, DBS made a mistake on a point of law or in a finding of fact on which its decision was based.

We note that the reasons given in the permission decision did not refer to the four enumerated grounds in JW’s “perfected grounds of appeal” document, but rather stated that JW’s grounds “essentially” rested on factual assertions indicating the omission of relevant and important contextual facts. We infer from this that, whilst not expressly restricting permission to the grounds set out in the permission decision’s “reasons” section, the permission decision did not find the enumerated grounds to be arguable, but did find there to be an arguable case within the factual assertions put forward by JW in her “perfected” grounds; and that it was fair and just in the circumstances to give permission on the basis of that arguable case, as spelt out in the permission decision.

For the avoidance of doubt, we consider it fair and just to decide this appeal on the basis of the issues identified as arguable in the permission decision: the parties had ample opportunity to prepare their cases following issuance of the permission decision, with accompanying case management directions.

For completeness, we will also give our decision on the four enumerated ground in JW’s “perfected” grounds document.