Full statement states…

.....it was not persuaded that at the date of the claim, or of the disallowance decision, he was “virtually unable to walk” which means practically unable to walk…..

This decision is from a re-hearing as we have already successfully appeald to the UT on a point of law and now i find what i feel is another EIL staring me in the face (there are also other comments similar to the above) however i’m not convinced that a different Tribunal will make any different decision - the client is finding it hard to cast their mind back to how they were at date of claim (March 2010) now, let alone if we apply for leave again so i’m not sure whether to persue it.

I’m interested in other people’s opinion’s on this…..what would you do?

I would go further than Tony in his first point.  I agree that any error of law must be material rather than merely technical for the appeal to succeed.  However, in my view, it is not necessary that but for the error the decision would have gone the other way but that there is a reasonable possibility that but for the error the decision could have gone the other way.

For a good outline of what could amount to an error of law see R(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) CA.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/982.html

Thanks both.

I’ll get the client in and discuss it…