## Facts

- The case concerned the approach to distinguishing between errors of law and errors of fact in the context of tribunal decisions.
- The First-tier Tribunal made a decision regarding the interpretation of planning rules about development rights.
- The Upper Tribunal’s classification of the issue—whether it was an issue of law or fact—was central to the dispute.
- The tribunal reportedly used its area-specific knowledge to analyse the case and apply relevant legal provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved an error of law or an error of fact.
2. How courts should distinguish between legal and factual questions for purposes of appeals from tribunal decisions.
3. To what extent the courts may review factual findings made by tribunals, particularly where such findings involve the application of legal standards to particular facts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court ruled that questions of law may be reviewed by courts, but factual findings—unless perverse or unreasonable—are generally final.
- The judgment clarified that when a tribunal draws upon its specialist knowledge to determine a "primary fact," this is treated as a factual matter, even if elements of legal interpretation are involved.
- In the present case, although the issue involved some legal interpretation, it was considered factual due to the tribunal’s application of specialized knowledge to the regulation in question.
- The Court limited the circumstances in which appeals can proceed on facts, emphasizing the role and authority of tribunals in their respective areas.

## Legal Principles

- The distinction between questions of law (subject to appellate court review) and questions of fact (primarily for tribunals) is critical to appeal procedures.
- A finding is factual if it is established through the tribunal’s specialist knowledge, even when it involves interpreting or applying legislation, provided the matter is closely connected to their specialized function.
- Appeals on factual findings are only permissible when the findings are extremely unreasonable.
- The test in Edwards v Baunack [1922] 2 KB 332 is relevant for determining the characterization of a tribunal’s decision as one of fact or law.
- Later cases, including R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28 and Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2015] UKSC 29, further interpret and apply the reasoning from Jones.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Jones v First-tier Tribunal established a clear framework for distinguishing between errors of law and fact in tribunal appeals, upholding tribunals’ authority over fact-finding and restricting court intervention to legal questions. Practitioners must accurately assess whether a challenge concerns law or fact to determine if an appeal is permissible.


Jones v First-tier Tribunal [2013] UKSC 19