UI2024000376

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity, and is to be referred to in these proceedings by the initials HM. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

                  As a result of the decision to grant permission to appeal the matter came before me to determine whether in the first place there was a material error of law in the First-tier determination such that it fell to be set aside.

              Ground 3 was self-explanatory and counsel made no submissions on it beyond what is said in the ground itself. Ground 1, the treatment of the expert's report was the main criticism made of this determination.

              As ground 2, the judge mentioned the death certificate being dated 1 June yet the appellant's difficulties arose the following month in July. Although it was not clear whether the point had been put by the advocates it mattered not because the judge had attached no weight to the documentation. As to ground 3, the judge carried out a proportionality exercise see [38] and [39] where he looked at negative aspects of the appellant's claim and then at [41] had looked at favourable aspects.

              In submissions to me it was said by the respondent that what the expert should have done was set out a range of views in which aspects of the appellant's account might be criticised and then analysed whether the appellant's account was still plausible. Instead the the expert merely noted that the respondent criticised the appellant's credibility but did not give any indication how that might impact on the plausibility of the claim.