If anyone is aware of Commissioners Decisions/other sources of caselaw on the above I would be very grateful

An appellant admitted they lied at a tribunal as they wished to increase the chances of them getting a job( by ommitting a piece of information ). Therefore there were no implications as regards her care/mobility needs from the lie in this context. There were other different opinions as to her care and mobility needs

The tribunal concenrned DLA and there was on other direct evidence she had lied as part of the rest of the papers.The claim was nilled - where would I start looking as to how to challenge their assertion that the appellants "evidence was unrelaible"

Thankyou in advance,

Toby Lintern

What was the lie of omission?
What were the lies on the form (if any) of commission?

The appellant failed to mention a long standing health condiiton on a job application form

Fri 26-Jun-09 04:55 PM by stevegale

Have had a similar situation.at first-tier level. Fibbing (or economic use of the truth) on job application form was used by Counter Fraud Team to suoport their case that client's needs had changed, etc. etc. hence big recovery demand.

I dealt with the point by quoting the stats for the number of people in paid work who were also in recept of DLA (this was very low at the time in 2004). Also emphasised the point that the Disability Discrimination Act did not require job applicants to disclose their medical conditions. Hence is it OK to fib to get around prejudice disabled people often face?

Might be trickier to get to Upper Tribunal though if there were other factors that caused first tribunal to doubt general crediibility.

I know this is stating the obvious but did the tribunal ask why?

Also in the context of the job applied for and the work the actual job entailed, was the failure to mention the long standing health condition, out of order, unethical or beyond the pale?

Or was it regardless of being right or wrong, a rational decision made on the basis of fear that potential employers may be prejudiced against employing him or her e.g. episodes of mental illness or a contentious physical health issue e.g. Hepatitis C. In spite of the fact they could do a good job and not be out of order, unethical or beyond the pale in the context of the job applied for and the work the actual job entailed.

But nevertheless the sort of omission that reflected his or her (rational/well founded) fear (that most of would recognise) of societies prejudice or discrimination denying them the opportunity of employment rather than suggesting an habitual liar?

The health condition was irrlevant to the activities associated with the job.

She stated she ommitted the information in order to increase the chances of her gaining a job