[2025] UKUT 218 (AAC)

It was arguable the FTT might not have adequately addressed evidence in the bundle regarding WS’s ability to function during the two-year period after the index assault on 25 August 2019. WS’s medical records contained several entries covering the period from October 2019 to April 2021 suggesting WS was displaying symptoms of agoraphobia, poor sleep, reduced appetite, low concentration, panic attacks, low mood and restricted social contact. The FTT did not appear to have made findings of fact about those entries or explained how it had evaluated them;

It was arguable the FTT had taken account of irrelevant matters when making its decision. The FTT referred to WS being able to socialise with friends and referred to page 216 of the FTT bundle. Page 216 was a discharge summary from a hospital dated 10 December 2022. It post-dated the end of the two-year period and was after WS had applied for compensation. It was unclear that it was relevant to the assessment of whether exceptional circumstances applied; and

The FTT’s wording at paragraph 42 of the written reasons reflected the approach indicated by Upper Tribunal Judge Wright in R(JA) v FTT (CICA interested party) [2024] UKUT 121 (AAC) (“R(JA)”). However, it was unclear whether, as R(JA) indicated was required, the FTT had evaluated the underlying circumstances and the reasons for WS’s ignorance of the 2012 Scheme, including as part and parcel of the circumstances preventing him applying for compensation earlier.