The claimant sought judicial review of the Board’s decision to restrict his award by two thirds for his previous driving convictions of driving with excess alcohol and driving whilst disqualified.
Held: The Board’s decision was for them. There was no error in law. They were a body of experts to whom the responsibility of assessing the value of awards had been delegated. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Moses J
Citations:
[1999] EWHC Admin 420
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Thompstone CA 1984
The court considered the circumstances of a claimant’s criminal record as they affected his entitlement to compensation under the scheme: ‘In each case, although different categories of circumstances can be taken into account, the issue is the same. . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Moore CA 23-Apr-1999
Where a claimant acquired a criminal conviction after the claim had been referred to a single board member for decision, he was entitled, despite the absence of an explicit rule, to refer the case back to the board. Reasons for a decision should . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139684
