R (KS) v FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL [2012] UKUT 281
FACTS:-
The Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and received compensation of £1875 for minor facial disfigurement and minor scarring to her lower limbs. She applied for a review arguing that she had post traumatic stress disorder. That was refused on the grounds that she had not provided supporting evidence. The letter of refusal was sent on the 24th August 2010, but she did not lodge her appeal until October 2011. The First Tier Tribunal refused to admit her appeal, and she was given permission to apply for judicial review.
JUDGMENT:-
Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs considered the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 and in particular Rule 22(6) and Rule 5(3)(a) which allowed the tribunal to extend the time for lodging the appeal. There was also the overriding objective in Rule 2. The Applicant had said that she did not know the right route to get the decision of the Authority changed. Also at that time she was suffering from regular panic attacks.
Judge Jacobs said that the judge’s approach to the Applicant’s appeal was fundamentally flawed. It referred to the cases of R (CD) v First Tier Tribunal [2011] AACR 1 and Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed [1991] 1 WLR 449 where it was said that the factors to be taken into account were:-
Judge Jacobs also referred to the case of R (Birmingham City Council) v Crown Court at Birmingham [2010] 1 WLR 1287. The Tribunal Judge had deal only with the factors relevant to the cause of the delay, which was a fundamental flaw. He should have used his case management powers to remedy it either by directing an oral hearing or by issuing a direction explaining what other information was relevant. The information given by the Tribunal in relation to extending the 90 day time limit was too narrow.
Judge Jacobs also referred to another case Mansur v Turkey [1995] Series A No.319-B in the European Court of Human Rights, although he said that this case was distinguishable.
The decision of the FTT would be quashed and the matter remitted back to them to decide whether or not it was appropriate to hold an oral hearing.
FACTS:-
The Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and received compensation of £1875 for minor facial disfigurement and minor scarring to her lower limbs. She applied for a review arguing that she had post traumatic stress disorder. That was refused on the grounds that she had not provided supporting evidence. The letter of refusal was sent on the 24th August 2010, but she did not lodge her appeal until October 2011. The First Tier Tribunal refused to admit her appeal, and she was given permission to apply for judicial review.
JUDGMENT:-
Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs considered the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 and in particular Rule 22(6) and Rule 5(3)(a) which allowed the tribunal to extend the time for lodging the appeal. There was also the overriding objective in Rule 2. The Applicant had said that she did not know the right route to get the decision of the Authority changed. Also at that time she was suffering from regular panic attacks.
Judge Jacobs said that the judge’s approach to the Applicant’s appeal was fundamentally flawed. It referred to the cases of R (CD) v First Tier Tribunal [2011] AACR 1 and Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed [1991] 1 WLR 449 where it was said that the factors to be taken into account were:-
- The length of the delay
- The reasons for the delay
- The chances of the appeal succeeding if the application was granted
- The degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application was granted
Judge Jacobs also referred to the case of R (Birmingham City Council) v Crown Court at Birmingham [2010] 1 WLR 1287. The Tribunal Judge had deal only with the factors relevant to the cause of the delay, which was a fundamental flaw. He should have used his case management powers to remedy it either by directing an oral hearing or by issuing a direction explaining what other information was relevant. The information given by the Tribunal in relation to extending the 90 day time limit was too narrow.
Judge Jacobs also referred to another case Mansur v Turkey [1995] Series A No.319-B in the European Court of Human Rights, although he said that this case was distinguishable.
The decision of the FTT would be quashed and the matter remitted back to them to decide whether or not it was appropriate to hold an oral hearing.