The petitioner appealed a refusal of his claim for compensation. He was a serving police officer injured whilst arresting an offender. He had retired on medical grounds and received pensions, which the Board found deductible from any award reducing his claim below the minimum. The relative scheme sought to award damages on a basis comparable to common law.
Held: Paragraph 20 provided that compensation was to be reduced by any pension received but paragraph 19 said reductions were not to be made for the receipt of money paid because the claimant had purchased that benefit. Parry was not comparable because there was the board was not in the position of a tortfeasor. An alteration in the Scheme intended to limit compensation to avoid providing the Applicant with an income higher than that which he would otherwise have enjoyed, should not be interpreted to mean that throughout the period after the date of his normal retirement he should benefit to the tune of one half of his ill-health pension. The effect of section 10 is that no deduction fell to be made in respect of the petitioner’s pension for the period after his normal retirement date. This result was inequitable.
Judges:
Lord Coulsfield and Lord Cowie and Lord President
Citations:
[2000] ScotCS 36
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 19 20, Administration of Justice Act 1982 10
Citing:
Appealed to – Cantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board HL 5-Jul-2001
When calculating the losses suffered by a victim of crime, the allowance to be made for losses to a retirement pension through having to retire early should have set off against them, the benefits received by way of payments for his ill-health, . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb CA 1987
Interpretation of CICB Scheme
The court should not construe the scheme as if it were a statute but as a public announcement of what the Government was willing to do. This entails the court deciding what would be a reasonable and literate man’s understanding of the circumstances . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Staten 1972
The words of the scheme should be given ‘their ordinary sensible meaning’ . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Cantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board HL 5-Jul-2001
When calculating the losses suffered by a victim of crime, the allowance to be made for losses to a retirement pension through having to retire early should have set off against them, the benefits received by way of payments for his ill-health, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Personal Injury
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.163776
