The Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding the Tribunal did not misconstrue 'incapacitated for work' in reg 1.03(b)(ii) of the Migration Regulations 1994 as requiring total or permanent incapacity; rather, the Tribunal was engaged in assessing the degree of incapacity but could not reach the requisite state of satisfaction because the medical evidence stated bare conclusions without underlying factual detail as to the extent of impairment on the applicant's ability to work. The Court also held that the Tribunal's view that a GP without mental health qualifications would ordinarily refer a patient with serious mental health concerns to a specialist was a matter of common knowledge not requiring specific evidence, and that the Tribunal's treatment of post-application medical evidence was reasonable given that evidence did not speak to the applicant's condition at the date of the visa application.
The full text is available to signed-in members.