[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)

This ground is that the Tribunal based its decision on paragraph 89(b) of the Scheme on the erroneous factual basis that the only award for which the Applicant could qualify was a further mental injury. He argues that is factually wrong because he could also have qualified for a Level B3 award of £2000 for “Serious abuse – intermittent physical assaults resulting in an accumulation of healed wounds, burns or scalds, but with no appreciable disfigurement” (see at [18-19]).

As set out above, in order for his claim for judicial review to succeed, regardless of whether he succeeds on grounds 1-3, he must also succeed on ground 4. That is because that is the only ground which goes to the second reason for the Tribunal holding it did not have the power to extend time in his case, i.e. paragraph 89(b) of the Scheme.

However, ground 4 cannot succeed. The Applicant’s argument is that, contrary to the reasoning at [5] and [18], he could have qualified for a Level B3 award for serious domestic abuse defined as: “Serious abuse – intermittent physical assaults resulting in an accumulation of healed wounds, burns or scalds, but with no appreciable disfigurement”.

First, the Applicant does not in the ground challenge the finding that further extensive enquiries were required in respect of the mental injuries. That being the case, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was wrong to find that further extensive enquiries were required to determine the application. That could only be argued if his application for compensation is now limited to a claim for a £2,000 Level B3 award, as being the only award which could have been made without further extensive enquiries.

However, and in any event, the Tribunal plainly did not err in finding that he could not bring himself within the scope of the Tariff for domestic violence for a number of reasons: