The High Court 

AR v Minister for Health

10 February 1999 

MORRIS J: 

It is necessary to relate the circumstances in which this matter comes before the Court. 

On the 30 July 1996 the Applicant received an award from the Tribunal in the sum of £205,000 made up as follows: 

(a) General damages -- £140,000 

(b) Future loss of earnings -- £25,000 

(c) Home help in the future -- £35,000 

(d) Nursing care -- £5,000 

This award was accepted by the Applicant. 

At that time the Applicant made no claim in respect of travelling expenses. 

By letter dated the 13 July 1998 the Applicant's Solicitors informed the Tribunal of the fact that at the relevant time no claim had been made by the Applicant in respect of travelling expenses to attend for medical appointments. A claim was made in respect of this item amounting to £25,819. 

This letter made a request that the case should be re-entered by the Tribunal for the purposes of making this claim. 

Under Section 6(3)(a) of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997 the Tribunal is vested with a discretion on whether to allow matters of this nature be re-entered. Section 6 subsection 3 provides as follows: 

(3) A person who has had a claim for compensation determined by the non statutory scheme Tribunal may 

(a) apply to the Tribunal to hear evidence at the discretion of the Tribunal which may not have been available to the non statutory scheme Tribunal in calculating the award made to that person 

(b) . . . 

(c) . . . 

(d) . . . 

(e) appeal an award 

I am satisfied that the circumstances of this case fall to be considered in the context of sub-section 3(a) 

I am satisfied that Section 6(3)(a) of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997 vests in the Tribunal a discretion to allow the Applicant to tender further evidence to the Tribunal or to refuse this relief. In fact the Tribunal refused the Applicant the right to adduce further evidence and by notice of motion dated the 14 December 1998 the Applicant gave notice of her intention to appeal the decision of the Tribunal "refusing to re enter the application of the applicant pursuant to Section 6(3) of the said Act 1997 for the purpose of hearing fresh evidence relating to travelling expenses incurred by the Applicant." 

The Applicant has challenged the manner in which the Tribunal exercise its discretion and accordingly it falls for me to consider whether this discretion was validly exercised. 

Counsel for the Applicant accepts the facts contained in correspondence between the Secretary of the Tribunal and the Blood Policy Division of the Department of Health as correct and does not require them to be deposed to in Affidavit. These letters are dated respectively the 17 December 1998 and the 14 January 1999. 

I am satisfied that a few months after the original hearing of this case the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 came into force and this provides for the provision of free home help to persons such as the Applicant. I am satisfied that this Section materially alters and differs from the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1970 which provided that these services may be provided. 

I am satisfied that if this Section had been in operation at the date of the hearing then it is improbable that the Tribunal would have allowed the sum of £35,000 which it did allow the Applicant in respect of the cost of providing home help on the basis that this service would shortly thereafter have been available to the Applicant free of charge. I am satisfied that in these circumstances the Tribunal felt that it was appropriate and proper to rectify this matter at the first available opportunity and accordingly it denied the Applicant the opportunity of advancing a claim for a further £25,000 in addition to the £35,000 which was already made available to her in respect of home help but in respect of which she was obliged to make no payment. 

I am accordingly satisfied of the following matters: 

(a) That the Tribunal acted within its discretion in reaching its decision to refuse to hear further evidence 

(b) That there are no grounds for believing that the exercise of this discretion was otherwise than based on valid reasons 

Accordingly I refuse the Applicant an Order appealing the decision of the Respondent's made the 15 October 1998 refusing the Applicant leave to re enter the application.