Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2010 UKUT 181 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	JR 1927 2009
Appellant:	CD
Respondent:	First Tier Tribunal (CICA)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge C. Turnbull
Date Of Decision:	01/06/2010
Date Added:	30/06/2010
Main Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Main Subcategory:	judicial review
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2011] AACR 1 Tribunal practice – extension of time for appeal – whether tribunal should have regard to CPR rule 3.9 The claimant, a child, and her siblings were placed in foster care by the Council. The claimant made an allegation of assault against her brother. The Crown Prosecution Service advised that there was not enough evidence to prosecute anyone. The Council made a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) on her behalf. On 21 June 2007 CICA issued an assessment decision disallowing an award of compensation, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. The Council applied for a review and on 19 March 2008 a letter was sent by CICA to the Council refusing to review. That letter was incorrectly addressed and did not come to the attention of the relevant case worker until December 2008. Under rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 an appeal is required to be made by sending notice of appeal to the tribunal “so that it is received within 90 days after the date of the decision being challenged”. The Council sent an appeal with additional evidence to CICA on 5 March 2009. CICA forwarded the letter and enclosed documents to the First-tier Tribunal, which on 19 March 2009 wrote to the case worker stating that the appeal was late, and enclosing a notice of appeal form, including a section for requesting an extension of the 90-day time limit. On 3 April 2009 the case worker replied enclosing a completed notice of appeal and giving reasons for lateness. The tribunal refused to admit the appeal. The claimant’s adoptive father made a claim for judicial review of that decision. It was argued on behalf of CICA that the correct approach for a tribunal judge who is considering whether to grant an extension of time for appealing is to have regard to the matters listed in rule 3.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Held, refusing the claim for judicial review, that: 1. there is no provision in the 2008 Rules in the terms of CPR rule 3.9, and it would not be appropriate to import it by way of analogy, as the tribunal’s power to extend time is unfettered and the circumstances which will be relevant in exercising the tribunal’s power to extend time will vary from case to case: R (Howes) v Child Support Commissioner [2007] EWHC 559 (Admin) cited (paragraphs 26 and 27); 2. the judge was entitled to take the view that, in the light of the substantial delay (albeit explained and excusable) which had occurred down to 8 December 2008, the delay which occurred between then and 3 April 2009 was inexcusable and that in the particular circumstances of this case, where there had already been substantial delay, the notice of appeal could and should have been sent without additional evidence (paragraphs 37 to 39); 3. it was sufficiently clear from the structure of the judge’s reasons that her conclusion was reached independently of the merits of the proposed appeal (paragraph 42); 4. the judge’s exercise of the discretion was not wrong in law or flawed in a respect which permitted interference by way of judicial review (paragraphs 24, and 43).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2011] AACR 1 ws.doc