![[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
most recently, Bradbury at [74]
most recently, Bradbury at [74]:
“the focus should be on the impact of the error on the decision-making process that the decision-maker undertook to ascertain whether it is highly likely that the decision that the public body took would not have been substantially different if the error had not occurred.”
In light of all of the above, the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal is limited to correcting clear errors of law, which had a material impact on the outcome, and which were such that it cannot be said that the outcome was highly likely to have been the same even without the error. Such circumstances do not arise in the present application for judicial review: there is no such error of law in the Tribunal’s decision.
- Heading
- Section 1
- The Tribunal’s Decision
- Conclusion
- The 2012 Scheme
- The Applicant’s Submissions
- The Tribunal Hearing
- General Principles
- can the circumstances preventing an earlier application be characterised as exceptional?
- the focus should be on the impact of the error on the decision-making process which the decision-maker undertook to ascertain whether it is highly likely that the decision taken would not have been su
- the Court should (in proper evidence) be given a full accurate and clear explanation of the decision-making process used by the public authority concerned and should not have to depend upon submission
- Grounds of Review
- Ground Two: The Tribunal made findings of fact which were erroneous on the basis they (i) had no evidential basis or (ii) were unreasonable
- Ground Three: Failure to take proper account of the impact of the abuse
- Ground Four: With respect to paragraph 89(b) the Tribunal made a finding of fact which was erroneous on the following bases: (i) it made material errors of fact giving rise to unfairness, (ii) a finding
- Alleged Adequate Alternative Remedy
- Conclusion
- CICA’s Submissions
- The 2012 Scheme
- Paragraph 89(a)
- whether the circumstances are exceptional is a question of fact (at [15])
- in R(JR) v FtT and CICA [2016] JR/1523/2016 at [6] Upper Tribunal Judge Ward suggested that the focus should be on what prevented the applicant applying sooner and then a Tribunal will be able to cons
- in MM v CICA at [33] the Outer House was content to adopt the two-part process formulation in BC , but said
- Lack of knowledge of the 2012 Scheme
- Lack of knowledge of suffering a crime
- Challenging factual decisions
- S.31 (2A) of the SCA 1981 provides that
- Gathercole v Surrey County Council [2021] PTSR 359 (Court of Appeal) at [38-39]
- R (Glatter) v North Herts Valleys CCG [2021] EWHC 12 (Admin) at [96]
- most recently, Bradbury at [74]
- Process/alternative remedy
- Ground 1
- he was able to, and did, make an application under the Scheme
- is not in any way, and cannot be suggested, that that was not put to him
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- the Level B3 award to which he refers requires there to have been (emphasis added) “ intermittent physical assaults resulting in an accumulation of healed wounds, burns or scalds, but with no apprecia
- Conclusion
- Analysis
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- Alternative Remedy
- The Transcript
- Conclusions