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.
1.���� I grant leave to appeal and proceed to determine all questions arising thereon as though they arose on appeal. �The decision of the appeal tribunal dated 24 September 2009 is not in error of law. �Accordingly, the appeal to the Social Security Commissioner does not succeed. �The decision of the appeal tribunal to the effect that the appellant is not entitled to reduced earnings allowance (REA), from and including 24 December 2008 is confirmed.
2.���� The appellant suffered an industrial accident on 10 July 1975 sustaining an injury to his back and right leg. �The applicant claimed industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB) by completion of Form BI.100A, part of a copy of which was attached to the original appeal submission as Tab No 1. �The appellant also claimed what was then known as special hardship allowance (SHA) by the completion of Form BI.103A, a copy of which was attached to the original appeal submission as Tab No 2. �It is important to note that with effect from 19 November 1986, SHA was replaced by REA.
5.���� An appeal against the decision dated 24 February 2009 was received in the Department on 10 March 2009. �On 22 July 2009 the decision of 24 February 2009 was revised as the wages quoted were erroneous for both occupations. �It was submitted that the wage in the regular occupation should have been �258.95 and that in the suitable alternative employment �333.20.� REA was still disallowed so the decision was revised only to correct the errors in the remuneration.
8.���� On 17 May 2011 written observations on the application for leave to appeal were requested from Decision Making Services (DMS) and such observations were received on 31 May 2011. �In these initial written observations, Mr Hinton, for DMS, opposed the application on the grounds cited on behalf of the applicant. �The written observations were shared with the appellant and his representative on 1 June 2011. �On 5 October 2011 written observations in reply were received from the appellant�s representative.
10.�� On 12 January 2012 further correspondence was received from Mr Hinton. �In this correspondence Mr Hinton indicated that:
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.