Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2014 UKUT 478 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	JR 3216 2014
Appellant:	R (JDR)
Respondent:	First-tier tribunal and CICA
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	22/10/2014
Date Added:	04/11/2014
Main Category:	Equality Act
Main Subcategory:	none
Secondary Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Secondary Subcategory:	other
Notes:	Reported as [2015] AACR 13 Tribunal procedure and practice – Equality Act 2010 does not apply to judicial functions – whether F-tT’s rejection of an agreed submission was appropriate On 27 April 2008 the claimant was sexually assaulted in a health club. Initially she complained directly to the club. On 28 May 2008 the claimant reported the incident to the police who interviewed the assailant but took no further action. The claimant successfully sued the assailant in the county court. On 12 February 2010 she applied for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Scheme 2008 for the adverse affects upon her mental health. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) refused her application under paragraphs 13(a) and (b) of the Scheme. That decision was upheld on review. At the hearing of the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) CICA decided not to rely on paragraph 13(b). Instead it jointly agreed a submission with the claimant that paragraph 13(a) applied to her case and that the award should be reduced by ten per cent. The tribunal rejected the joint submission and, having heard evidence, it decided that paragraph 13(a) applied and that the award should be reduced by 50 per cent. The two issues before the Upper Tribunal (UT) were the application of the Equality Act 2010 to judicial decisions and the exercise of the F-tT’s power to reject an agreed submission. Held, dismissing the application for judicial review, that: 1. to the extent that the arguments for the claimant were based on the Equality Act 2010 they were misconceived, as the legislation governing the public sector equality duty did not apply to the exercise of a judicial function (paragraphs 12 to 14); 2. the F-tT was entitled to refuse to accept the proposal agreed between the parties. It did not deprive it of jurisdiction and it exercised its powers properly in pursuing its concerns. At best, the criticisms of the tribunal’s analysis showed that a different outcome was possible; they did not show that it was wrong in its approach to the case (paragraph 40).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2015] AACR 13.ws.doc