BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) >> DP v Secretary of State for Defence (WP) (War pensions and armed forces compensation - war pensions - assessment) [2017] UKUT 434 (AAC) (31 October 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2017/434.html Cite as: [2017] UKUT 434 (AAC) |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
DP v Secretary of State for Defence (WP) (War pensions and armed forces compensation - war pensions - assessment) [2017] UKUT 434 (AAC) (31 October 2017)
In this appeal, the F-tT decided to reduce an assessment on review. It did not, however, refer to Article 44(4) expressly, nor state explicitly the condition it relied upon when reducing the assessment from 40% to 30%. It did 'warn' the appellant and his representative of its power to increase, reduce or maintain the assessment at its present rate and gave them the opportunity to adjourn to discuss whether they wished to proceed. They declined. The warning did not, of course, show that the F-tT adverted to Article 44(4). However, the F-tT's careful analysis of evidence over the course of nearly 30 years, including a large body of medical evidence, led me to the conclusion that it must have had Article 44(4) in mind when hearing the case and making its decision, and its findings were more than adequate to show it relied on mistake of material facts. I explain in very basic terms aspects of ignorance of material facts and mistake as to material facts. I also discuss fact vs opinion, and how an opinion may imply that the person giving the opinion had reasonable grounds for holding it. That could amount to a fact.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : 434.pdf
