Appeal Court judges define the meaning of ‘walking’ for injured Fartown man

Mar 16 2010 by Joanne Douglas, Huddersfield Daily Examiner

Arguing that his view is in line with the “ordinary meaning” of the word, he added: “If one of the legs is not being used in the act of walking, then that cannot be described as walking.”

Noting that Mr Sandhu could put no weight at all on his right leg after the accident – instead relying on his upper body strength to propel himself forward on crutches – Mr Rutledge said the DWP’s insistence that he could nevertheless walk is “outside the bounds of reasonableness”.

Granting permission for a full Appeal Court hearing, Lord Justice Scott Baker said it was arguable that the two tribunals were wrong in their legal definition of the word ‘walk’.

Also observing that the case raises “an important point of principle or practice that warrants the decision of this court”, the judge said that if Mr Rutledge’s definition is correct, a large number of other accident victims may become eligible for the mobility benefit.

Mr Sandhu’s case will now go forward for a full hearing before three Appeal Court judges on a date which has yet to be fixed.