[2024] UKUT 191 (AAC)

I am persuaded on balance that the application for permission to appeal is arguable. I am not at this stage persuaded that the appeal is more likely than not to succeed, but that is not the appropriate test at the permission stage. I note that there is no challenge by the Appellant to the FTT’s approach to the meaning of the term “permanent”. The challenge, as I understand it, is more to the way in which the FTT applied that test to the evidence. There is, therefore, the risk that this appeal is really an attempt to re-argue the case on its factual merits but dressed up as an appeal on a point of law. If so, then the appeal will not succeed, not least for the reasons identified by Judge Monk CP when she refused permission to appeal on behalf of the FTT. In granting permission to appeal I also bear in mind that the determination of such PTSD cases poses several definitional problems for FTT panels in applying the tariff.