![[2025] UKUT 033 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforce
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, I set that decision aside and remit the case to be reconsidered by a fresh tribunal in the light of this decision.
REASONS FOR DECISION
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), (b)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforce
- Introduction
- Legal framework
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- Ground 1 - That the Tribunal gave inadequate reasons for concluding that the appellant’s filling repair on 1 February 2021 was not ‘caused by service’
- Ground 5 - That the Tribunal reached a perverse conclusion that there was “no evidence” that any stress which contributed to the facial pain was service-related
- Conclusions