Seeking CA/96/1984

Not got a copy but out of interest, why are you looking for such an old decision on a well established point of law?  Has someone raised a new point which puts it into question?

I pegged the S & Maxwell reference just as a guide to others. I’m working from the Mark Perlic’s DLA caselaw 2011 which is not really covered in S & Maxwell:

“The decision confirmed, in respect of the “substantially in excess” test applied to claims on behalf of children, that if the DMP had refused (and it was not clear that they had) the claim because they had equated something which was “relatively common” with that which was “not in excess of what was normal” then they would have erred in law. This was because just because something was “relatively common” did not mean that it was “not in excess of what was normal.”
The decision criticised the DMP for seemingly being influenced by the “irrelevant consideration” that the condition was “relatively common” pointing out that the real question that needed to be determined was whether or not “relevant attention” was required.”

The decision dealt with enuresis, not the same condition as in my appeal case, but it would be useful to have as the DWP used a similar ‘common night-time condition’ reason to refuse.

I wasn’t that hopeful as a Google search showed Stainsby requested a copy of the same decision eight years ago and the result was tumbleweed…

Good news - the DWP has sent us a copy, attached below.

I’ll also add it to toolkit,

cheers Ros

Thanks very much, Ros.

You might also want to look at R(DLA) 1/05.