[2025] UKUT 365 (AAC)

As indicated at the hearing, I was content to allow the appellant to run the additional argument about head-ball impacts as the Secretary of State was prepared to deal with it and it seemed to me to be important to consider it both for the benefit of the Tribunal that will consider this appeal again on remission and other cases in which the issue may be relevant.

In my judgment there are a number of flaws in the reasoning of the First-tier Tribunal as to the causation of the appellant’s loss of faculty that amount to material errors of law. I identify them below. In setting them out in the order that I do, I am conscious that I am suggesting that the Tribunal should approach the issues in this case in what might be thought to be the reverse order from that contemplated by the legislation. As will be seen, I suggest that the Tribunal consider first the nature of the claimed injury, then the effective causes of that and, lastly, whether those causes constitute ‘accidents’. I do so because it seems to me that in a case such as this that may be the best way of approaching the issues. However, I am not laying down a general rule. The issues necessary to determine an IIDB claim can be decided in any order, provided the correct legal approach is taken to each issue.

The flaws that I have identified in the Tribunal’s reasoning are as follows:-