CG V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL AND CICA [2011] UKUT 225
FACTS:-
This was an application for judicial review on behalf of a man who had suffered a serious assault in October 2000, as a result of which he had sustained a significant brain injury. He lived with his grandmother who continued to provide him with considerable day to day support. The CICA originally awarded him £106,195 in 2007 at which point he was being supported in his claim by Victim Support. On review that award was increased to £145,680. He then appealed at which point in 2009 he found representation with solicitors. There was then a hearing before the First Tier Tribunal in August 2010 at which he was awarded £351,443.94. However they refused to award him any past or future care. The Applicant then signed an Acceptance Form, which was given to him by the CICA in the presence of his barrister and solicitor, but none of those parties contemplated that signature of the form would prevent the Applicant from applying for a judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. A cheque was sent by the CICA to the solicitors and duly presented for payment. Then, when the solicitors came to submit an application for permission to judicially review the Tribunal’s decision, the CICA queried whether they were entitled to do so, given their acceptance of the award.
JUDGMENT:-
Judge Turnbull said that there were two questions to decide.
The answer to the first question was “yes”. This was a contract between the Authority and the Applicant which became binding once the award had been paid over. This was particularly so when the Applicant had signed acceptance in the presence of his solicitor and counsel. The form itself said that acceptance would be “in full and final settlement.”
The answer to the second question was “yes”. Judge Turnbull referred to the case of R (CICA) v First Tier Tribunal and IM [2011] UKUT 70 where the Upper Tribunal considered the meaning of care. In this case, despite medical evidence that the Applicant did not require care, there was evidence to the effect that he required some assistance. Consequently the Tribunal’s definition of care had been too narrow. However Judge Turnbull would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for re-consideration, had the answer to the first question had been “no”.
FACTS:-
This was an application for judicial review on behalf of a man who had suffered a serious assault in October 2000, as a result of which he had sustained a significant brain injury. He lived with his grandmother who continued to provide him with considerable day to day support. The CICA originally awarded him £106,195 in 2007 at which point he was being supported in his claim by Victim Support. On review that award was increased to £145,680. He then appealed at which point in 2009 he found representation with solicitors. There was then a hearing before the First Tier Tribunal in August 2010 at which he was awarded £351,443.94. However they refused to award him any past or future care. The Applicant then signed an Acceptance Form, which was given to him by the CICA in the presence of his barrister and solicitor, but none of those parties contemplated that signature of the form would prevent the Applicant from applying for a judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. A cheque was sent by the CICA to the solicitors and duly presented for payment. Then, when the solicitors came to submit an application for permission to judicially review the Tribunal’s decision, the CICA queried whether they were entitled to do so, given their acceptance of the award.
JUDGMENT:-
Judge Turnbull said that there were two questions to decide.
- Whether the Applicant was prevented from applying for judicial review by reason of the fact that the full amount awarded to him by the Tribunal had been paid to him by the CICA, following signature by him of a form, in which he stated that he accepted payment in full and final settlement of his application for compensation.
- Whether the original decision by the First Tier Tribunal in relation to their refusal to award any sum for the cost of care was wrong in law.
The answer to the first question was “yes”. This was a contract between the Authority and the Applicant which became binding once the award had been paid over. This was particularly so when the Applicant had signed acceptance in the presence of his solicitor and counsel. The form itself said that acceptance would be “in full and final settlement.”
The answer to the second question was “yes”. Judge Turnbull referred to the case of R (CICA) v First Tier Tribunal and IM [2011] UKUT 70 where the Upper Tribunal considered the meaning of care. In this case, despite medical evidence that the Applicant did not require care, there was evidence to the effect that he required some assistance. Consequently the Tribunal’s definition of care had been too narrow. However Judge Turnbull would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for re-consideration, had the answer to the first question had been “no”.