CD v First Tier Tribunal (CICA)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judicial review claim arises from a decision of a First-tier Tribunal dated 22 April 2009 refusing to extend the time for appealing against a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). The CICA had refused to make an award under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 in favour of the Applicant, a child born in October 2001, who alleged she was sexually assaulted by her brother around April 2005. The claim to CICA was made in March 2007 by the local authority on the Applicant's behalf, nearly two years after the alleged incidents.

The CICA initially disallowed the claim in June 2007 for insufficient evidence. The local authority applied for a review in September 2007, which was considered by CICA, who again refused compensation in March 2008. The local authority was notified of the review decision but did not submit a timely appeal to the First-tier Tribunal within the 90-day time limit. Subsequent correspondence revealed delays and miscommunications between the local authority and CICA, including a late submission of a notice of appeal in April 2009, after the expiry of the appeal period.

The First-tier Tribunal refused to extend the time for the late appeal in its April 2009 decision. The Applicant sought judicial review of that refusal, claiming procedural unfairness and denial of the right to appeal. The judicial review hearing was held in May 2010, with the Applicant represented by her adoptive father and CICA represented by counsel.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in refusing to extend the time for appealing the CICA review decision.
2. Whether the procedural handling by CICA and the local authority deprived the Applicant of natural justice and the right to appeal.
3. Whether the Tribunal Judge misapplied legal principles or exercised discretion unlawfully in refusing the extension of time.
4. Whether the Tribunal Judge was correct to consider the merits of the underlying compensation claim in the context of the extension of time decision.
5. Whether the fact that the Applicant was a child should have influenced the Tribunal’s decision on extension of time.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• CICA failed to send responses to the correct person or failed to send them at all, causing the Applicant to be deprived of natural justice and the right to appeal.
• It was perverse to enforce a time limit without evidence that CICA complied with its obligations.
• Refusing an extension of time denied the Applicant a chance to present her case.
• Delay was partly caused by the need for the local authority to consult the adoptive parents and consider the Applicant's welfare.
• The merits of the claim suggest that CICA was wrong to reject the compensation claim initially, supported by the Applicant’s statement, drawing, and an admission by the brother.

CICA's Arguments

• The 90-day time limit for appealing under the Tribunal rules is mandatory and runs from the date of the review decision, not from the date of communication.
• The First-tier Tribunal Judge properly exercised discretion in refusing the extension of time, considering the history of delay and lack of good reason for the late appeal.
• The letter of 8 December 2008 from CICA did not reinstate the case, and CICA had no jurisdiction to do so.
• The Tribunal Judge was correct not to adopt the checklist approach from CPR Rule 3.9, as the power to extend time under the 2008 Rules is unfettered.
• The Tribunal Judge’s consideration of the merits of the claim was appropriate as part of the reasoning but was not determinative of the extension of time decision.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the exercise of discretion by the First-tier Tribunal Judge in refusing to extend the time for appeal. It emphasized that the power to extend time under the 2008 Rules is unfettered and not constrained by a checklist such as CPR Rule 3.9. The Judge’s decision was reviewed for error of law or irrationality, not for merits of the case or fresh consideration of discretion.

The Tribunal Judge acknowledged the delay caused by the late awareness of the review decision but found no good reason why the appeal could not have been made promptly after December 2008. The further delay until April 2009 was considered inexcusable, especially given that grounds of appeal could have been submitted earlier without waiting for additional evidence.

The Judge’s comments on the merits of the compensation claim were considered to be separate and not determinative of the extension decision. The Judge’s reasoning was found to be lawful, rational, and within the bounds of reasonable discretion. The fact that the Applicant was a child was taken into account implicitly, and the Judge was not required to expressly state the weight given to this factor.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the claim for judicial review, upholding the First-tier Tribunal Judge’s refusal to extend the time for appealing the CICA review decision.

The direct consequence is that the Applicant’s late appeal remains inadmissible, and the refusal of compensation by CICA stands. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision confirms that the Tribunal’s discretion to extend time under the 2008 Rules is broad and not subject to fixed checklists or rigid criteria. The court reaffirmed the importance of timely appeals and the limited scope for judicial review of discretionary procedural decisions.