Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 147 (AAC)

Fecha: 13-May-2025

Analysis

Analysis

20.

It is not disputed, and I find, as follows—

(1)

Ms BMC did not receive the notice of hearing informing her of the date on which the First-tier Tribunal hearing would take place. I so find because she told me this, and explained what had happened (paragraph 15 above), and my impression of her from the oral permission hearing was that she was telling me the truth on all of that.

(2)

Ms BMC would have attended the First-tier Tribunal hearing had she known of its date. I so find for three reasons: First, she has engaged thoroughly with these Upper Tribunal proceedings. Second, she appeared motivated to explain to the First-tier Tribunal her fear of supporting a prosecution. Third, Ms BMC even asked my advice about which mode of hearing to agree to if the case was remitted and the First-tier Tribunal were to ask for her preferred mode of hearing. (I explained that choosing telephone or video would not be held against her.) In other words, Ms BMC is clearly keen to attend a First-tier Tribunal hearing.

(3)

If Ms BMC were given the opportunity to explain to the First-tier Tribunal what her fear was and how it affected her, the First-tier Tribunal might accept that the compensation claim should not fail under paragraph 23 of the scheme.

21.

It is not disputed, and I find, that there was therefore a material error of law involved in the making of the First-tier Tribunal decision. The error of law is that Ms BMC did not receive notice of the First-tier Tribunal hearing and did not attend that hearing. The error is material for two reasons, neither of which is disputed. First, BMC would have attended the First-tier Tribunal hearing had she received the notice of hearing. Second, what she would have told the First-tier Tribunal at the hearing could have made a difference.

Disposal

22.

The parties agreed to remittal to the First-tier Tribunal. I consider that to be the appropriate course.