The Supreme Court ruled that dependants who claim under the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal scheme may individually appeal an award of general damages or mental distress, including how the award is apportioned among them. One dependant’s acceptance does not prevent another from appealing.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Finnegan on 7 May 2008, arose from a Tribunal award following the death of N.C., a haemophiliac who contracted Hepatitis C and HIV from contaminated blood products. The deceased’s widow, daughter, parents and siblings were included in claims made to the Tribunal. The judgment records that the widow accepted the award on her own behalf and on behalf of the daughter, while other dependants sought to appeal their allocated amounts.
The Tribunal had treated the dependency claim as one claim brought by the widow and said the other dependants had no separate appeal right. The High Court held that the dependants were claimants and could appeal, with an appeal potentially affecting other dependants’ shares. The Tribunal appealed to the Supreme Court on questions about who could appeal, whether the widow’s acceptance barred appeals, and whether an appeal could challenge the whole award or only the appellant’s allocation.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the compensation legislation incorporated the Civil Liability Act’s rule allowing only one action for damages following a death. It held that the scheme allowed individual claims by each eligible dependant. Where one dependant brought a representative claim for others, each person on whose behalf it was brought remained a claimant with an appeal right in respect of the award to them or a Tribunal decision affecting them.
The court also said that a successful appeal could require the award’s apportionment to be revisited. It interpreted the statutory payment deadline so that payment of the shared award would be due only when all claimants accepted the award and its apportionment, or after any appeal was determined. This avoids paying accepted shares before an appeal might alter the allocation.
The court answered the appeal questions: yes, one or more dependants may appeal; no, acceptance by the person who lodged the claim does not bar another dependant’s appeal; and an appellant may challenge either the compensation award or its apportionment to that appellant. The judgment did not itself reassess the amounts awarded.