Can anyone clarify tribunal decision meaning

tru88le

"The appeal was refused and, furthermore the Decision was set aside and the appellant awarded  0 points"

Does this mean the appeal was lost but the decision set aside? I assume it does because later on they go on about the next tribunal.

They said on reflection it was an error in law but do not kniw why themselves!? It has to do with the previous adjourned hearing andthe reasons for Djournment being unclear because they cant read that jydges notes! Therefor tthey should not have proceeded at all kniwing there was an undisclosed issue. I kniw what it was but its not to my advantage toput them right i dont think especially as I lost.
So am Iback to pre tribunal state or did the award i had get taken away? 
Or did the award i had get taken away but that decision to remove it is revoked ?

Does this save me requesting set aside andit seems an unusual situation to have a tribunal kniwing the decision will be set aside.

tru88le

If it matters it was a first tier tribunal.

tru88le

To clarify, the first tier tribunal hearing was adjourned with a warning and a request for medical evidence covering the last two years.
The second hearing  decision  was that the appeal was refused.

Then in the statement of reasons the judge said  'on reflection ...felt the decision was in error of law... [ due to the meaning of the warning from the adjourned first tribunal hearing not being clear, even after examining that judges records]

So, they refused my appeal but never mentioned the error or the issue of an unclear warning.

Although the judge says 'on reflection' in the notes which implies they had in fact reached this decision afterwards, its obvious the tribunal were aware of this issue  at the start of the hearing, meaning they knowingly went ahead with the hearing despite  an error of law occurring.

To me its like what would in a criminal case be a mistrial yet proceedings going ahead anyway, knowing the verdict will be immediately deemed unsound.
No judge would do that as iits an obvious waste of time.
This judge said 'on reflection' for that reason- to obscure the fact that he knew at the beginning but still allowed proceedings to go ahead.

I had a stack of errors anyway but theyset aside themselves.
For example, here was witness evidence missing to support my appeal.
None of that came to light so in a sense they have avoided facing other discrepancies.

It seems unusual to make a decision, inform the claimant in court then set aside by letter something they were aware of when giving the decision.

I kniwthey knew about theunclear warning st the start because that is the first thing they said at the hearing, they mentioned the warning previously given but in hindsight they had no clue what it was actually for and thus the error in law was made at thestart not afterwards as the judge implied.
I can imagine an upper tribunaljudge wondering why they went ahead and why they tried to obfuscate the fact there was an error right at the start.

I would also like to ask if the term BPM  has ever been used medically to signify breaths per minute as opposed to beats. To anyones knowledge.

chiarieds

Medically, BPM would most often be thought of as beats per minute, measuring your pulse rate. It can denote breaths per minute, but would much more frequently be considered as beats per minute.

tru88le

Ive been told the decision has not been set aside and have to request it a set aside znd give reasons.
But why would a judgesay that phrase 'furthermore the decision is set aside'?
I dont see howthat can mean anything else than they decided to set it aside...

tru88le

And thanks for the clarification about bpm

tru88le

So i phone hmcts and they say its not been set aside yet thejudge in  his reasons said it has .
What do you think? Anyone?