The standard of review of an insurer's opinion under a TPD clause is whether the opinion was 'not open to an insurer acting reasonably and fairly in the consideration of the claim'. This is neither a merits review nor the Wednesbury standard, though the practical difference from Wednesbury may be minimal. The ETE clause requires a connection between suggested future work and the claimant's vocational history — having discrete transferable skills for entry-level positions unrelated to the claimant's work history does not satisfy the clause. An insurer must consider a claimant's psychological makeup, including fear-avoidance syndrome, where it is evidenced in the material before the insurer. Whether geographical availability of employment is relevant to the TPD assessment remains an open question.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.