Looking for caselaw about "more favourable" decisions and views on the Secretary of States' right to supersede.

The case concerns a client appealing a refusal of ESA whose ESA85 was mislaid by the SOS. The SOS then revised the decision because they could not provide evidence to the tribunal, the client (who was still on the basic rate while appealing) remained on the same rate.

We applied for a direction that the appeal should go ahead as it was not more favourable to the claimant. The DWP argue that this means that the benefit can be "awarded for a longer period". However we argue that the claimant's entitlement would be ongoing anyway and that the revision just meant that the claimant was prevented from exercising his right to have the case determined and the WRAC awarded.

The DWP subsequently made a further decision turning the claimant down again. We now have a hearing of our argument on the first appeal.

A suplementary question is - where does that leave the 2nd appeal? A new medical can be grounds for supersession under reg 6(2)(h) if the medical is obtained for the purposes of reg 23 or 38. Medicals can be obtained where LCW (or LCWRA) "falls to be determined". Is it arguable tthat the SOS cannot rely on 6(2)(h) if my argument