I argued in my submission to the tribunal that now the 'lifting and carrying' has gone back to pre 6/1/97 definition my client scores 8 points because although he can pick up a 2.5 kg bag of spuds and pass it between his hands, he can't walk with it. he qualifies because carrying implies movement.

the DWP have written back stating that lifting and carrying has always been standalone and never involved other activites, even prior to 6/1/97.

I am writing to the tribunal again to argue that L&C can involve walking.

Can anyone tell me what caselaw there is from the time that confirms L&C can involve walking.
- In their letter, the DWP list a load of old caselaw from 1996 that they say confirms that it doesn't, and I want to list a bit of caselaw of my own, but I'm having a hard time finding any

also, is there any post Howker caselaw that confirms that the changes to the L&C descriptor were detrimental to claimants?

thanks

The Court of Session in their recent decision Dominic Capello v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2004) agreed with the conclusion of Commissioner Parker in R(IB)4/03 and held that the activity of walking should not be taken into account in any assessment of All Work Test descriptor 8: 'lifting and carrying'.

However, in reaching its decision, the Court did not appear to have specifically considered whether the 1996 amendment to descriptor 8 which changed it from 'lifting and carrying' to 'lifting and carrying by the use of the upper body and arms (excluding all other activities specified in Part 1 of this schedule)'was 'ultra vires'.

Consequently, it may still be arguable that, post Howker, the conclusion of Commissioner Rowland in CIB/483/2001 is the correct one. He held that to 'carry' –

' … connotes a degree of movement from one place to another. Merely handing something to someone is not carrying it.'

It may be worthwhile reminding any tribunal of what Commissioner Jacobs advised in R(IB)3/04 in relation to the 1996 amendments-

'The other amendments made to the 1995 Regulations by the 1996 Regulations are not in issue in this case. Tribunals dealing with cases involving those amendments will have to decide whether they are covered by the reasoning in Howker, which I have applied in this decision. Mr Lewis told me that all those amendments were described to the Social Security Advisory Committee as “neutral” in their potential effect on claimants. The issue for tribunals will be whether that was an accurate description.' (paragraph 13)

thanks for the information
jim