Kerry Underwood

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

leave a comment »


The matters dealt with in this piece are examined in great detail in my three volume, 1,300 page book Personal Injury Small Claims, Portals and Fixed Costs – price £50 and available from Underwoods Solicitors here.

Kerry Underwood offers consultancy services in relation to this and other matters and details are here.

In this, the first of a series of posts setting out brief summaries of key tribunal decisions in the last year I set out 3 decisions of the Social Entitlement Chamber (Criminal Injuries Compensation).

All of the information in all of these posts is taken directly from the Senior President of Tribunals’ Annual Report 2020, which is an invaluable and free resource dealing with all aspect of the work of tribunals as well as setting out these summaries of key cases.

The whole report can be accessed here.

 

Social Entitlement Chamber (Criminal Injuries Compensation) 

CitationPartiesJurisdictionCommentary
[2019] UKUT 15 (AAC)R (CICA) v Ft TCriminal Injuries CompensationUTJ Rowland reviewed the authorities as to whether an injury is directly attributable for a crime of violence. The Tribunal also commented that whilst a tribunal was not bound to accept an expect medical report it may consider the evidence to be compelling in the absence of any other medical evidence, but it must still give reasons. It doubted that the tribunal was required to record a dissenting view.

[2019] CSOH 79Lord Advocate v F-t T (SEC)Criminal Injuries CompensationThe Outer House of the Court of Session decided that nasal bones were not part of the skull and accordingly as a matter of statutory interpretation a fracture to nasal bones was not a fracture of the skull. Giving judgement Lord Brailsford gave guidance on rule 2(2)(d) of the First-tier Tribunal (SEC) Procedure Rules 2008. The use of the special expertise of a tribunal member is intended to assist the tribunal in reaching a view on the evidence, including matters of technical difficulty or complexity within their expertise. It is not to provide evidence.

[2019] UKUT 322 (AAC)T D v Ft T and CICACriminal Injuries CompensationUTJ Markus QC quashed an interlocutory decision striking out the appellant’s appeal. The Judge highlighted errors in HMCTS administration and emphasised the importance of providing a complete and accurate appeal bundle. This error was compounded by misadvising the appellant about his right to apply for reinstatement.

Written by kerryunderwood

August 14, 2020 at 8:13 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: