![[2025] UKUT 365 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground 2 - Failure to address/give reasons for concluding that the other ‘undocumented’ incidents that the Tribunal concluded were an effective cause of the injury were in law “process” rather than pa
Ground 2 - Failure to address/give reasons for concluding that the other ‘undocumented’ incidents that the Tribunal concluded were an effective cause of the injury were in law “process” rather than part of a series of “accidents” together with the 10 specific accidents identified in the claims
The Secretary of State’s concession in relation to this ground was a qualified concession and the Secretary of State’s position is not one with which the appellant is wholly in agreement. I therefore begin by setting out what is agreed and then explaining the parties’ arguments on the points that are not agreed and the conclusions I have reached regarding them.
- 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 Enforc
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Factual background
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The law
- Industrial injuries benefits for prescribed disease or injury
- Relevant case law relating to IIDB
- Causation
- Injury
- Accident
- The approach of the Upper Tribunal on appeal
- Ground 2 - Failure to address/give reasons for concluding that the other ‘undocumented’ incidents that the Tribunal concluded were an effective cause of the injury were in law “process” rather than pa
- The parties’ submissions
- My conclusions on ground 2
- Ground 1 - Perverse and/or inadequately reasoned conclusion that the 10 specific documented accidents were not an ‘effective cause’ of the injury
- My conclusions on Ground 1
- Identification of the injury
- Identification of the effective causes
- Identification of the accidents
- Extent of disablement
- Ground 3 - Perverse and/or inadequately reasoned reliance on family history of cognitive impairment
- My conclusions on Ground 3
- Conclusions