R(AM) V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (CIC) [2012] UKUT 55
FACTS:-
The Applicant was assaulted on the 29th August 2006, but did not make a claim until the 22nd February 2010. He said that he had been visited by a victim liaison officer after the assault who had said that she would complete the necessary papers. The CICA turned down his claim on the grounds that it was out of time. He instructed solicitors in March 2010 who applied for a review, which was again turned down, and so with his solicitor’s help he appealed. The Appeal Panel decided that was practicable to consider the application, but it had not been reasonable for the Applicant to have delayed making a claim. The Applicant applied for judicial review of that decision.
JUDGMENT:-
Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland referred to a number of cases:-
These cases involved late applications to Employment Tribunals. Judge Rowland said that three questions arose under the 2008 Scheme:-
However, even though the third question arises only if the answer to the other two was “yes”, if the answer to the third question would plainly be “no”, it would not be necessary to reach a firm conclusion on either of the other questions.
In Judge Rowland’s view, the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion it did on the evidence before it. It was clear that this was a case where, before the two-year time limit expired, the Applicant knew that there was a criminal injuries compensation scheme and he either knew, or had the means of finding out, that there was a time limit. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to take the view that he could reasonably have been expected to discover considerably sooner than he did that no application had in fact been made and that therefore he could reasonably have been expected to make his application before February 2010. On that basis, the application fell to be rejected either because the Applicant could reasonably have been expected to submit it within the two-year period or, alternatively, because it had not been made as soon as possible after the two-year period had ended.
Furthermore, Judge Rowland was satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal did not err in not holding a hearing in this case because the circumstances were such that it was not required to make more detailed findings of fact.
The application for judicial review would be dismissed.
FACTS:-
The Applicant was assaulted on the 29th August 2006, but did not make a claim until the 22nd February 2010. He said that he had been visited by a victim liaison officer after the assault who had said that she would complete the necessary papers. The CICA turned down his claim on the grounds that it was out of time. He instructed solicitors in March 2010 who applied for a review, which was again turned down, and so with his solicitor’s help he appealed. The Appeal Panel decided that was practicable to consider the application, but it had not been reasonable for the Applicant to have delayed making a claim. The Applicant applied for judicial review of that decision.
JUDGMENT:-
Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland referred to a number of cases:-
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470; [2005] ICR 1293
- Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Bevan UKEAT/440/07; [2008] ICR 682
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372, at 377E
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53
- Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52
These cases involved late applications to Employment Tribunals. Judge Rowland said that three questions arose under the 2008 Scheme:-
- The first was whether it is practicable to consider the application.
- The second was whether the two-year time limit should be waived.
- The third, which arose only if the answer to each of the others was “yes”, was whether the application had been submitted as soon as possible after the end of the two-year period.
However, even though the third question arises only if the answer to the other two was “yes”, if the answer to the third question would plainly be “no”, it would not be necessary to reach a firm conclusion on either of the other questions.
In Judge Rowland’s view, the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion it did on the evidence before it. It was clear that this was a case where, before the two-year time limit expired, the Applicant knew that there was a criminal injuries compensation scheme and he either knew, or had the means of finding out, that there was a time limit. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to take the view that he could reasonably have been expected to discover considerably sooner than he did that no application had in fact been made and that therefore he could reasonably have been expected to make his application before February 2010. On that basis, the application fell to be rejected either because the Applicant could reasonably have been expected to submit it within the two-year period or, alternatively, because it had not been made as soon as possible after the two-year period had ended.
Furthermore, Judge Rowland was satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal did not err in not holding a hearing in this case because the circumstances were such that it was not required to make more detailed findings of fact.
The application for judicial review would be dismissed.