In terms of case law, the most significant recent decision concerning reg 27 IFW Regs is the "Howker" Court of Appeal decision, R(IB)1/03: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/docs/commdecs/03_04/ib_303.asp This held that the 1996 amending reg 27 was ultra vires. The Court of Appeal held that old form of reg 27(b) remains in place subject to the earlier "Moule" judgment which remains in place i.e. Secretary of State decision makers rather than a BAMS doctor, should decide on the old form of reg 27(b) is met on the facts of any case.
Although reg 27(b) refers to "some specific disease", I don't feel the fact that no specific diagnosis has been made as to what your client is actually suffering from is in itself a problem. What you would need is medical confirmation of what symptoms he has, their severity,and that it is medically accepted he is physically sick.
In terms of successfully pursuing a SSC appeal, it sounds like you need to highlight that the tribunal were in error by not considering all the issues raised by the appeal i.e. reg 27. It would be an issue " raised by the appeal " even if you just raised it first verbally at the appeal hearing (see What is the inquisitorial function of the tribunal? section of rightsnet's At the Tribunal Q&A: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/search.cgi?dir=qandas&template=listtemp.htm&page_option=1&page=tth-5a
This should be clear if you referred to reg 27 in any written submission to the tribunal. If not, any verbal points you made should be recorded in the tribunal's Record of Proceedings. This is normally readily available on request from the Appeals Service, and is always useful to ask for in addition to a full written reasons statement.
|