Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(i) the tribunal's findings and reasons were inadequate when addressing the question of what constituted actual capital and what constituted notional capital;
(ii) the tribunal applied a test of "reasonableness" when addressing the question of disposal of capital, rather than the correct test of "significant operative purpose" of securing entitlement to IS;
(iii) the tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations with respect to the medical evidence and misdirected itself in its evaluation of the evidence regarding the reasons for the appellant's expenditure of capital.
He submits that here the unaccounted for sum of �65,060 was properly treated as actual capital as the tribunal did not accept that the appellant had proved that she no longer has the capital.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.