R(Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) v First-tier Tribunal (CIC): [2018] UKUT 439 (AAC);[2019] AACR 18

Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Lady Carmichael, Judge Rowland, Judge Markus QC on 20 December 2018.

From:
HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
Published
31 January 2019
Last updated
25 March 2021 — See all updates
Categories:
Criminal injuries compensation, Tribunal procedure and practice
Sub-categories:
Criminal injuries compensation - other, Tribunal procedure and practice - judicial review, Tribunal procedure and practice - tribunal jurisdiction
Judges:
Three Judge Panel
Decision date:
20 December 2018

Read the full decision in JR 0906 2017-00.

Read the full decision in [2019] AACR 18ws

Judicial Summary

Reported as [2019] AACR 18

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).

Published 31 January 2019
Last updated 25 March 2021 + show all updates

  1. Decision selected for reporting as [2019] AACR 18

  2. First published.

Related content