With respect, that case is distinguished. The ‘failure to apply for provision’ (reg 66A (3)(b)) did not apply to the claimant in that case and is, therefore, not part of the ratio of that decision, so that decision is not binding. Furthermore, arguments were not put under that limb on behalf of the claimant, so the commissioner did not have to decide whether that limb applied to the claimant’s circumstances at all, of which (as far as we know) her religious beliefs were not part.
Secondly, as far as the commissioner did hear argument on Reg 66A(3)(b) it was as to the vires of the reg as a whole and its purpose.
Finally, no argument was heard as to article 9 of the HRA.
|