[2025] UKUT 302 (AAC)

It follows that, in our view, DBS made mistakes in findings of fact on which its decisions were based.

Given this, we are required either to direct PEO’s removal from the barred lists, or to remit the matter to DBS for a new decision. In DBS v AB [2021] EWCA Civ 1575, the Court Appeal said, at [72]:

Given that in this case it is undisputed that PEO should have checked on JS overnight on 1-2 April, and should have got him ready for his outgoing on 3 April, but did not, there is at least a question of whether it would be appropriate to include PEO in the barred lists; we accordingly must remit the matter to DBS for a new decision (on both lists). DBS must base that new decision on the findings of fact made by us in this decision, and set out at [20], [25] and [28] above, as well as on its unchallenged previous factual findings, as set out at [8a ii.] and [8a iii.] (as regards JS) above.

PEO must be removed from the barred lists until DBS makes its new decision: this is the “fallback” position under the Act, and we decline to direct otherwise.

In the circumstances, there is no point our addressing the “disproportionate” ground of appeal, as DBS will be making a new decision, based on the facts as we have found them.