R(KS) V FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (CIC) [2012] UKUT 281
FACTS:-
The Applicant applied to the CICA for compensation arising out of an assault on the 11th August 2004 and received compensation for minor physical injuries. She applied for a review, arguing that she had post traumatic stress disorder but was turned down on the grounds that she had no psychiatric evidence. Its letter notifying her of its decision was dated the 24th August 2010, and she had a right of appeal. However she did not lodge her appeal until October 2011. The First Tier Tribunal refused to admit her appeal out of time, but she was given permission to apply for judicial review of that decision.
JUDGEMENT:-
Judge Jacobs considered the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI No. 2685/2008). Rule 22(2)(b) provided that an appellant had 90 days in which to lodge a criminal injuries compensation appeal. The rules also provided the circumstances in which an extension of that time might be granted. The Applicant said that she did not know the right route to get the decision changed and she was suffering from regular panic attacks, which were exacerbated by the process of appealing. Jacobs J considered the tribunal judge’s decision, which he said was fundamentally flawed. The tribunal had power to extend that time under rule 5(3)(a) and that power was unfettered. He considered the following cases:-
The judge dealt only with the factors relevant to the cause of the delay but this was a fundamental flaw. He mentioned the length of the delay in his first paragraph, but did not analyse its significance and he did not mention the merits at all. There were probably no significant consequences for either the Authority or the tribunal system as a whole if the appeal were admitted. The problem was then compounded by the judge’s decision not to hold an oral hearing. That deprived the Applicant of a chance to refer to other matters. The questions on the appeal form and on the Tribunal’s website was too restrictive. Jacob J said that the very generalised nature of the reasons given by the judge for refusal, suggested that these might be standard form. It was efficient for judges to have standard statements that they use as required. But they need to adapt or add to those statements in order to deal with the particular circumstances of the individual case. The First-tier Tribunal would now reconsider the Applicant’s application to extend time for appealing against the Authority’s decision.
FACTS:-
The Applicant applied to the CICA for compensation arising out of an assault on the 11th August 2004 and received compensation for minor physical injuries. She applied for a review, arguing that she had post traumatic stress disorder but was turned down on the grounds that she had no psychiatric evidence. Its letter notifying her of its decision was dated the 24th August 2010, and she had a right of appeal. However she did not lodge her appeal until October 2011. The First Tier Tribunal refused to admit her appeal out of time, but she was given permission to apply for judicial review of that decision.
JUDGEMENT:-
Judge Jacobs considered the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI No. 2685/2008). Rule 22(2)(b) provided that an appellant had 90 days in which to lodge a criminal injuries compensation appeal. The rules also provided the circumstances in which an extension of that time might be granted. The Applicant said that she did not know the right route to get the decision changed and she was suffering from regular panic attacks, which were exacerbated by the process of appealing. Jacobs J considered the tribunal judge’s decision, which he said was fundamentally flawed. The tribunal had power to extend that time under rule 5(3)(a) and that power was unfettered. He considered the following cases:-
- R (CD) v First-tier Tribunal (CIC) [2011] AACR 1
- Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed [1991] 1 WLR 449 at 450:
- R (Birmingham City Council) v Crown Court at Birmingham [2010] 1 WLR 1287
The judge dealt only with the factors relevant to the cause of the delay but this was a fundamental flaw. He mentioned the length of the delay in his first paragraph, but did not analyse its significance and he did not mention the merits at all. There were probably no significant consequences for either the Authority or the tribunal system as a whole if the appeal were admitted. The problem was then compounded by the judge’s decision not to hold an oral hearing. That deprived the Applicant of a chance to refer to other matters. The questions on the appeal form and on the Tribunal’s website was too restrictive. Jacob J said that the very generalised nature of the reasons given by the judge for refusal, suggested that these might be standard form. It was efficient for judges to have standard statements that they use as required. But they need to adapt or add to those statements in order to deal with the particular circumstances of the individual case. The First-tier Tribunal would now reconsider the Applicant’s application to extend time for appealing against the Authority’s decision.