Mobility descriptor 2(c) - conflicting caselaw

While Judge Hemingway in UK/694/2015  finds that if you can’t do 50 metres unaided but can walk unaided afterwards you don’t score under 2(c), Judge Mitchell in CPIP/4572/2014  finds that if you can’t do 50 metres unaided you score the points and it doesn’t matter how far you can walk with aids after.

Interestingly, considering the current consultation on aids and appliances, Judge Mitchell says -

On the face of it, there is logic in the treatment of those who are especially reliant on a walking aid. Everything being equal, their use of walking aids and hence their disability-related costs are likely to be greater.

I think it could be said that Judge Mitchell’s comments are obiter, but what is interesting is that both cases accept the DWP submissions - i.e. the two DWP submissions were diametrically opposed.

On the basis that the interpretation of 2(c) was central to Judge Mitchell’s case, and the DWP supported that interpretation, I think we can reasonably argue that this is the interpretation which should be followed