[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

This Ground alleges that there was unfairness in the Tribunal’s decision because it made findings that were not put to the Applicant.

First, it is plainly not the case that every finding which a tribunal makes must be “put” to an applicant. There was no “allegation” which needed to be put to him. In this case, his position was that he did not know that he was a crime had been committed on him. That was clearly addressed with him in detail in his evidence, see e.g. his evidence

“M: Can you speak to the tribunal why you didn’t raise the abuse issues back then?

MF: I wasn’t aware I was undergoing domestic abuse. Simple. Simply, and I wasn’t aware at all until much later”

...

“I wasn’t even aware that domestic abuse, that the domestic abuse, was a crime and that I was undergoing a crime, I didn’t even know that compensation would be covered”

...

“Judge: Are you saying that the first that you became aware that domestic abuse is a criminal offence is in October 2019 when you made the application?

MF: Yes”

The Applicant’s case and evidence in that respect was rejected, the Tribunal giving clear reasons why.

Secondly, however, the ground is based on a misinterpretation of the Tribunal’s reasons:

in respect of legal advice (it being asserted that the Tribunal made a finding that he had legal advice at the time of the stabbing application):

insofar as the Tribunal noted, in [5] of its reasons that the Applicant had legal support “at that time”, it is clearly referring to the time of the appeal hearing because it had just, in [4], set out what had happened at the appeal hearing.

hence, when it is referring to “at that time”, it is referring to the time of the appeal, February 2022. It is plainly correct that he “had the support” of legal representatives at that time: he did. The fact that the Tribunal refer to him also having the support of solicitors, if in fact he did not have such at the time, is immaterial.

the specific words used in [16] that it noted “that he would have had access to a copy of the 2012 scheme at that time and that he had access to legal advice during the course of the prior appeal”, together with the next statement which is that “It seems to us entirely possible that at any point from August 2016 down to October 2019 when the claim was made, the Appellant might have easily been able to find out about domestic abuse and its place withing the Scheme”

that is, the Tribunal was not saying, as appears to be alleged, that he actually had legal advice in August 2016. Rather, the Tribunal was simply saying that getting legal advice was one step (amongst others) which he could have taken to find out more about the Scheme at any time between then and October 2019.