The MIB appealed on the basis that the judge had failed to properly consider the consequences of the claimant passing the UKCT, arguing that the only logical conclusion was the claimant had either been malingering,consciously exaggerating or did not suffer from significant cognitive defects. The claimant cross appealed arguing that the finding that the claimant passed the UKCT went against the weight of evidence.
In his lead judgment, McCombe LJ found that the trial judge had placed the UKCT pass into context with all the other evidence and had been entitled to make the findings he did, and had not been wrong to place significant reliance on the fact that the claimant spent 9 months in a residential rehabilitation programme. The judge had been entitled to find that the claimant did pass the UKCT on the evidence that he heard but it would have been the wrong approach to focus on the UKCT pass almost to the exclusion of the other evidence.
When a particularly compelling piece of evidence arises that is inconsistent with the other evidence, the correct approach is not to focus on that piece of evidence to the exclusion of the other evidence but to place it into the context of the evidence as a whole.
Joseph Carr, Anthony Gold