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.��� This is an appeal by the claimant against the unanimous decision of the tribunal, affirming the decision of a decision-maker, to the effect that the claimant does not satisfy the conditions of entitlement to either the mobility component or the care component of disability living allowance (DLA) from 22 May 2009.
2.��� Having considered the circumstances of the case and any reasons put forward in the request for a hearing, I am satisfied that the appeal can properly be determined without a hearing.
3.��� Mr Lee Hatton of the Law Centre (NI) represents the claimant while Mr John Kirk of Decision Making Services represents the Department.
4.��� On 22 May 2009 the claimant made a claim for DLA stating that he had osteoarthritis, depression, panic attacks and high blood pressure.� On 24 June 2009 it was decided that the claim should be disallowed from and including 22 May 2009.� After a request for reconsideration of the decision, on 2 July 2009 the decision was reconsidered but not changed.� On 20 July 2009 the claimant�s letter of appeal was received.
5.��� On 13 November 2009, by way of a paper hearing, a tribunal disallowed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the decision-maker.� The claimant then sought leave to appeal to a Commissioner.� On 13 April 2010 the legally qualified panel member (LQPM) refused leave to appeal.
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.