i recall reading a commissioner's decision where the commissioner ruled that there wasn't a failure to give reasons where the tribunal's thinking was implicitly clear enough to be understood, and it wasn't necessary for an express statement on whatever the issue was, i've forgotten, to comply with the requirement to give reasons. can anybody tell me what i'm talking about... i really need to track this one down...i think it was an IB decision, but am not sure.

thanx

jj

Is it C28/00-01(IB)(T) jj?

Wed 22-Feb-06 02:43 PM by ken

C28/00-01(IB)(T) - now R 2/01(IB)T - is available here.

andrew and ken, thank you very much much... i'm not sure if it was the one i had in mind... i seem to remember it as more of a shorter 'harumpph', tacked on to another issue, but perhaps my memory is playing its tricks... in any event, this one is very useful, and para 38 sounds very much like whatever it was i was thinking of...(having another not sure if i'm coming or going day...)

cheers

jj

Thanks for sparing my blushes Ken!