[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

Ultimately, the question for the Tribunal to consider was a question of fact for it (see BC above). As such it is for the Tribunal to determine that fact, as ordained by Parliament. The Upper Tribunal cannot interfere with that decision unless there is an error of law, see e.g. AH (Sudan) v Home Secretary [2008] 1 AC 678 per Baroness Hale at [30] (cited in Hutton at [53]:

“They and they alone are the judges of the facts. It is not enough that their decision on those facts may seem harsh to people who have not heard and read the evidence and arguments which they have heard and read. Their decisions should be respected unless it is quite clear that they have misdirected themselves in law. Appellate courts should not rush to find such misdirections simply because they might have reached a different conclusion on the facts or expressed themselves differently.”

As emphasised in Hutton at [57-58(i) – (ii)]

it is the Tribunal – not the Upper Tribunal – which is the tribunal of fact and which heard the evidence.

the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to one of judicially reviewing the Tribunal’s decision. It has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision, absent a public law error.

under s.15(1)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the TCEA 2007”) the Upper Tribunal has the power to grant a quashing order.

s.15(4) of the TCEA 2007 provides that, in deciding whether to grant such relief, the Upper Tribunal must apply the principles which the High Court would apply. S.15(5A) provides that s.31(2A) of the SCA 1981 applies to the Upper Tribunal when doing so.