The Supreme Court ruled that an appeal under the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal legislation is confined to the question of law specified in the High Court order granting leave. It said the appeal could not succeed on a separate ground, although the Court could consider wider issues where necessary to answer that specified question.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Clarke on 9 July 2015, arose from the Minister for Health and Children’s appeal concerning a compensation claim by L. O’S. The claim followed contamination of blood products. An earlier High Court appeal had considered the applicant’s entitlement to damages for nervous shock and how principles from negligence cases should apply within the statutory compensation scheme.
The High Court granted the Minister leave to appeal under section 5(19) of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997. It specified a question about whether provisions of the legislation meant that a particular issue identified in Kelly v Hennessy did not need to be addressed. L. O’S then brought a motion in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Minister’s filed appeal went beyond that specified question.
The Court held that the words “on a specified question of law” in section 5(19) clearly confined the appeal to the specified question. It distinguished that wording from other statutory appeal regimes in which a certificate or leave permits a broader appeal after a threshold question has been met. The Court also relied on the reasoning in D.B. v Minister for Health and Children.
The judgment addressed the scope of the appeal, not the underlying question about nervous shock or the merits of the Minister’s specified legal question. It said that only if the Minister succeeded on the specified question could the Supreme Court allow the appeal and interfere with the order under appeal. Wider legal issues could be considered only as an aid to resolving that question, not as independent grounds for allowing the appeal.
The Court proposed to hear counsel further on how the substance of the appeal should proceed to an early conclusion. The judgment did not determine that substantive appeal.