Key Facts
- •Ms. H was sexually abused by her grandmother's partner from age 5.
- •CICA initially refused her compensation claim, then offered £1,500.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) partially allowed her appeal, increasing the award to £13,500.
- •Ms. H sought judicial review of the FTT's decision.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) found the FTT erred in law in multiple ways.
Legal Principles
The FTT must correctly apply the test for 'disabling mental injury' as defined in Note 2 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 Tariff.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 Tariff, Note 2
If the FTT finds an expert's report insufficient, it must seek clarification from the expert.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Section 17
The UT can remit a case to the FTT for redetermination if the FTT materially erred in law.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, Section 17
Outcomes
The UT allowed the judicial review and quashed the FTT's decision.
The FTT made multiple errors of law in its assessment of Ms. H's claim, including misinterpreting the scheme's definition of 'disabling mental injury', failing to seek clarification from an expert, and giving insufficient weight to relevant evidence.
The case was remitted to the FTT for a rehearing.
To ensure the FTT correctly applies the law and considers all relevant evidence in determining the appropriate compensation for Ms. H's injuries.