![[2025] UKUT 181 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
S.31 (2A) of the SCA 1981 provides that
S.31(2A) of the SCA 1981 provides that:
“(2A) The High Court—
(a) must refuse to grant relief on an application for judicial review …
if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred”.
Accordingly, even if the Upper Tribunal finds that the Tribunal has made an error of law, its decision cannot be quashed if either (a) the error is not a material error, or (b) even if the error was a material error, the outcome was still highly likely to have been the same, that is if the appeal to the Tribunal was highly likely have been dismissed in any event. See also e.g.
- 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