BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) >> R (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) v First-tier Tribunal (CIC) (Criminal injuries compensation - other) [2018] UKUT 439 (AAC) (20 December 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2018/439.html Cite as: [2019] AACR 18, [2018] UKUT 439 (AAC) |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
R.(Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) v First-tier Tribunal (CIC) (Criminal injuries compensation - other) [2018] UKUT 439 (AAC) (20 December 2018)
Judicial review - criminal injuries compensation - jurisdiction of Upper Tribunal - claimant injured in Scotland and living in Scotland - First-tier Tribunal decision made in Scotland - whether Upper Tribunal having jurisdiction - whether jurisdiction to be declined on forum non conveniens grounds
The claimant, who lived in Scotland, was assaulted in Scotland. His claim for criminal injuries compensation was rejected but the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT), sitting in Scotland, allowed his appeal. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) brought judicial review proceedings in the Upper Tribunal (UT) but subsequently both CICA and the claimant argued that the UT did not have jurisdiction to consider the case but that the Court of Session did.
Held, striking out the application for judicial review, that:
1. : : : : : "cases arising under the law of England and Wales" in which the UT has a judicial review jurisdiction pursuant to section 15(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (`the 2007 Act') are cases in which the High Court would have jurisdiction but for that Act (paragraph 19);
2. : : : : : Teharani v Secretary of State for Home Department [2006] UKHL 47 was concerned with the jurisdiction of the Court of Session. The Court of Session would not have jurisdiction in the strict sense to determine a judicial review application in respect of a UK-wide or GB-wide tribunal unless there was a clear connection with Scotland in the underlying facts of the case (paragraph 34).
3. : : : : : under the 2007 Act there is no reason for a presumption that the appropriate court is to be determined by reference to the part of the UK in which the F-tT made its decision. The test is simply one of appropriateness. However, Tehrani must be followed when considering the strict jurisdiction of the Court of Session on an application for judicial review of a decision of the F-tT or the UT (paragraphs 37 and 38);
4. : : : : : (without deciding the point) the High Court might have jurisdiction in the strict sense to determine an application in respect of a UK-wide or GB-wide tribunal in a case with no connection with England and Wales (paragraph 51); but if the UT has jurisdiction in the strict sense, it should decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds (paragraphs 52 and 69-72);
5. : : : : : general guidance on the approach to arguments on forum non conveniens in criminal injuries compensation cases given (paragraph 78).
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2018] UKUT 439 (AAC)
