[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

Mr Mandagere submitted that the Tribunal had found that the Applicant would have had access to legal advice during the course of the prior appeal (and presumably before October 2019).

That is not, however, what the Tribunal found. What it found was that (with emphasis added)

“4.

The Appellant has made a prior claim to compensation on the 03 August 2016, because of a single assault which occurred on the 28 March 2015, during the period when he was subject to domestic abuse. That assault was reported to Croydon Police on the same day as it happened ... Following an appeal against that decision, a Tribunal decided that the Appellant should be awarded £17,250, which included an award at A13 (£27,000) for a seriously disabling permanent mental injury, reduced by 40% to account for a pre-existing condition - i.e. £16,200. There was also a payment for scarring at £3,500 payable at 30% ...

5.

We note that at that time, the Appellant had the support of solicitors and counsel, Ms Titus-Cobb, and that it was readily apparent that the Appellant was the subject of domestic abuse. In fact, a psychiatric report had been obtained in which there is mention of “chronic domestic violence/abuse by his then girlfriend” and that the attack (the subject of that appeal) exacerbated the Appellant’s PTSD by 60% ...”

It is clear from the context of the italicised words that what the Tribunal was saying was that at the time of the appeal in the stabbing case, which was on 11 April 2022, the Applicant had the support of counsel and solicitors. It was not saying that he had legal advice at the time of the original claim in August 2016 nor was it suggesting that he had legal advice before October 2019 or at some point thereafter until the time of the first hearing.

Moreover, the perfectly legitimate point which the Tribunal was making, as Mr Moretto rightly submitted, was that the fact that the Applicant had legal advice in respect of the stabbing claim demonstrated that he could have had legal advice in respect of his domestic abuse claim.

Secondly, Mr Mandagere submitted that the Tribunal had made an express finding that the Applicant either (physically) had a copy of the 2012 Scheme or that he would have had (or had had) access to a copy.

That is not, however, what the Tribunal found. What it said in paragraph 16 was that (with emphasis added)

“We note that the Appellant had already embarked on a process of claiming for the single stabbing incident; that domestic abuse was mentioned during that claim process; 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. 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 within the scheme. Accordingly, we do not accept that his mental health throughout that period prevented him from making a claim for domestic violence.”

When the two italicised passages are read together, it is apparent that what the Tribunal was saying was that from August 2016 down to October 2019 when the claim was made, he had access to the 2012 Scheme in the sense that he might have easily been able to find out about domestic abuse and its place within the Scheme and in that sense he had access to it. What Mr Mandagere argued was that (as to which see paragraph 32(c) above) the inclusion of the words “at that time” in paragraph [5] of the Tribunal’s reasons was important since it indicated that the Tribunal went beyond a finding that the Applicant had the ability to access the 2012 Scheme (which he could have done at any point). It indicated rather that it found that he had in his possession a copy of the 2012 Scheme. As I made clear during the oral argument, I found the submission that the Tribunal had made a positive finding that the Applicant physically had a copy of the 2012 Scheme to be wholly untenable. That is entirely to misread paragraph [16] of the reasons.

The Applicant knew of the existence of the 2012 Scheme at latest on 3 August 2016. He must have known of its existence because he made a claim under it in respect of the stabbing incident. (The fact that the form was an online form and was filled in by a support worker does not detract from that conclusion, although I note that in paragraph 23 of his witness statement of 11 August 2022 he said that he had filled in the form and sent it off.) The fact that he may not have known of the details of the Scheme does not assist him. He could have easily been able to find out about domestic abuse and its place within the Scheme by the simple expedient of looking it up on the internet and I note in that context that it was never suggested on his behalf that he did not have a computer (or at least access to one) or that he was somehow prevented from looking it up on the internet between August 2016 and October 2019 when he finally did make a claim. Indeed, the Applicant himself makes the point that he was able to make a claim for the stabbing incident without legal assistance and that he did not have access to legal advice until a very late stage (see paragraph 11 of his unsigned and undated witness statement prepared after the Tribunal had given its decision: “11. I filled out the application for the stabbing injury on 3^rd August 2016 without any legal assistance. I sought a review of this award on 18^th September 2019 again without any legal assistance”).

As Mr Moretto put it very simply, “If you know there is a scheme, why not look at the scheme?”