Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2012 UKUT 287 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	JR 412 2011
Appellant:	NF
Respondent:	First-tier Tribunal and CICA
Judge/Commissioner:	Three-Judge Panel / Tribunal of Commissioners
Date Of Decision:	31/07/2012
Date Added:	20/09/2012
Main Category:	Criminal Injuries Compensation
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2013] AACR 11 Tribunal jurisdiction – interpretation of section 15(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – whether right of appeal lies to the Upper Tribunal or the Court of Session – application of forum non conveniens doctrine The claimant submitted a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) following an unprovoked attack in Scotland. On 11 February 2008 it was rejected by CICA on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim. On 29 April 2008 the claimant applied for a reconsideration of that refusal but on 12 May 2008 CICA confirmed its decision. The claimant then had 90 days in which to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) but did not do so until 20 August 2010. On 13 October 2010 a F-tT judge sitting in England decided not to extend the time limit. On 11 February 2011 the claimant applied for judicial review to the Upper Tribunal. Eventually, after an initial refusal, it granted permission to apply for judicial review on the basis that the Upper Tribunal had jurisdiction and having received from the claimant medical evidence of her health problems. CICA argued before the Upper Tribunal that section 15(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was limited to cases arising under the law of England and Wales (or Northern Ireland) and referred to the law governing the original decision (in this case the claim for compensation). The issue before the Upper Tribunal therefore was whether proceedings for judicial review of the decisions of the First-tier Tribunal could be brought in England and Wales (and in particular before the Upper Tribunal pursuant to section 18 of the 2007 Act), or in Scotland, or in both jurisdictions. Held, that: 1. as a matter of the ordinary meaning of the statutory language such applications were within the meaning of the phrase: “cases arising under the law of England and Wales”, and there was no circularity in so construing it. It followed that the 2007 Act did not provide for mutually exclusive review jurisdictions in England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other and that the forum non conveniens doctrine applied in determining whether the High Court (and the UT) or the Court of Session should determine a review of a decision when both have jurisdiction to do so (paragraph 30); 2. it was common ground that the Court of Session had supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the decision of the F-tT not to extend the time limit for bringing the appeal and so admit it for hearing. It followed that the forum non conveniens doctrine applied and the convenient forum was the Court of Session (paragraphs 31 to 32). The Upper Tribunal decided to adjourn the hearing to allow the claimant time to start proceedings in the Court of Session, failing which the case was to be reconvened before one of the Upper Tribunal judges.
Decision(s) to Download:	JR 0412 2011-00.doc [2013] AACR 11ws.doc