Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Oldie but goodie - has anyone got a copy of or link to CIB/13161/1996, CIB/13508/1996?

MM3
forum member

Advisers team, Money Matters Govan, Glasgow

Send message

Total Posts: 3

Joined: 26 March 2021

Was going to refer to it and thought I’d better re-read then could not find a copy.

Charles
forum member

Accountant, Haffner Hoff Ltd, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 935

Joined: 27 February 2019

MM3
forum member

Advisers team, Money Matters Govan, Glasgow

Send message

Total Posts: 3

Joined: 26 March 2021

Many thanks..

And - it did not disappoint!

Gareth Morgan
forum member

Managing director - Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1777

Joined: 16 June 2010

13508 is also on our Social Security law databas CD-Rom.  It summarises the decision as “However, under the new scheme for incapacity benefit the sole question is not whether in the general sense a person can be regarded as incapable of work but whether or not he or she attains the requisite number of descriptors.”

MM3
forum member

Advisers team, Money Matters Govan, Glasgow

Send message

Total Posts: 3

Joined: 26 March 2021

Well yes, but it is helpful in putting in a reasonableness/real world aspect to the test on each descriptor - if the activity cannot be done without significant pain, fatigue, with reasonable repetition and as and when required then for the purposes of the descriptor, it cannot be done.  From other case law - seen in a general work context allows one to add reasonable speed and so on….

“Consistently with this, the possibility of pain and fatigue and the increasing difficulty of performing a given activity on a repeated basis must in my judgment be taken into account by considering how far the claimant’s normal capabilities are impaired by comparison with those of a healthy person in normal working order”.

It’s one that is at the back of my mind a fair bit and my mind being a tired and tatty thing, I thought it would be a good idea to check it said what I thought i did and had no hidden mammoth pits to trap me. It didn’t - it has an unhelpful bit about work context but put rather vaguely and later case law sorts it. All good.