| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
There is no hard and fast rule of law to the effect that an initial statement made before disentitlement is entitled to more credence than one made later. There is no basis for any bald proposition that a first statement is always admissible in preference to a second statement.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
restrictions |
geographical area |
|
Summary:
Longer periods of time for exploring the labour market are normally allowable to persons regularly resident in areas of limited employment opportunities.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| availability for work |
incompatible situations |
good reasons |
|
Summary:
The question of availability is an objective one. It cannot depend upon the particular reasons for the restrictions, however much these may evoke sympathetic concern.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
not applying jurisprudence |
|
Summary:
Error of law not to following principles stated in case law; context: restriction on availability and reasonable period to be allowed.
