![[2025] UKUT 066 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Whether the FTT’s error was material
Whether the FTT’s error was material
An “immaterial” error of law is one which would have made no difference to the outcome of the case, and such errors do not normally justify setting aside the decision. The hurdle (to show that a legal error is immaterial) is a relatively high one: an error is immaterial only if the tribunal “would have been bound to have reached the same conclusion, notwithstanding the error of law”, given findings it had made which are not tainted with error (Detamu v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 604, at [14]).
I now explain why the error of law in the FTT’s decision was in my view immaterial as regards some information (the emails to HSE from A Ltd from March 2020 and the prohibition notice served on the site developer), but material as regards other information (the contravention letters served against Amark).
- Heading
- The appeal is allowed in part
- References in what follows to
- References to numbers in square brackets are (unless the context indicates otherwise) to paragraphs of the FTT’s decision The decision of the FTT
- set out a chronology, as follows
- At [2], the FTT stated that the appeal concerned Mrs O’Hanlon’s contention that
- The grant of permission to appeal
- Responses to the grant of permission
- The Upper Tribunal’s analysis
- Why the FTT erred in finding that HSE held no other information within scope of Mrs O’Hanlon’s request
- Whether the FTT’s error was material
- Email of 24 March 2020 from A Ltd to HSE
- Email from A Ltd to HSE of 17 March 2020
- Prohibition notice served on the site developer on 6 April 2020
- Notification of contravention letters served against Amark
- Conclusions