Just had this passed to me to look at and I'm struggling on a couple of issues..can anyone help??

PS the following is a basic summary, as we did not rep the client at any stage until now. I don't have all the papers, but the question is (as you will no doubt see) somewhat more general/procedure based....

Basically there was an IB/PCA trib which found client fit...basic argument of claimant was that previous med evidence had shown sufficient visual impairment (only one eye) to be eligible/pass PCA and condition was unchanged (which point UT seem to accept..they just state that client can manage well enough with one eye)...

However, 1st tier trib finds against client, and in its statement of reasons clearly says that there is no evidence from any medical report to show that vis impairment points would apply.

The previous med evidence (2yr old IB85) states (re eyesight) that client meets criteria for award of points to make incapable of work...!!

1st tier trib have seen this IB85 in papers, and yet still decide against and state as above (ie no evidence to show etc)...clearly (in my view) an error/ unreasonable or irrational reasoning. Leave to appeal sought from Upper trib on grounds of insufficient/irrational reasons and error based on same in context of no improvement of condition (eyesight).

Upper trib reply - refused leave - reasons "cannot interfere with 1st tier unless it got law or procedure wrong/cannot substitute my own view of the evidence which was for the 1st tier to decide" (paraphrased)...

Am somewhat stuck, given that it is unclear whether we can JR such a decision of UT unless on purely procedural grounds (?)...nor can we seem to request set aside (?) nor is there grounds for the UT to review its decision.

My gut is for JR, but I can't find any guidance or authority to back this up...any suggestions welcome

SORRY EVERYONE....Just realised my colleague Sue Lees has already asked about this one...( I should have read the postings before I acted). Sue is away on hols (hence my not knowing about her previous enquiry)...seems that JR is right...will have to move forward on that basis.

having said all that.

if the client's remaining eye is good (that is, he has good vision out of his remaining eye) i cannot see that he can succeed at all whatever further route one goes down.

people manage very well with one good eye. they don't even lose their driving licence.

.......or, as in the case of the Seleucid general Antigonus, lose the ability to lead significant military operations.

I agree with Claire, unless there is a problem with the remaining eye, it is very difficult to score sufficient points to pass the PCA. On the outline of the case as described, I don't think there is anything irrational in the refusal of leave, as the receipt of medical evidence following an examination will enable supersession where it is found that the criteria to pass the PCA are not met.

Best wishes for what does not appear an easy case

Brian

I used to know a one-eyed barrister - he drove a startling yellow sports car very fast.