The High Court has dismissed P.B.’s appeal seeking more time to apply to the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal. The court found that his mental and physical health problems did not cause his failure to learn about the compensation scheme before the statutory deadline.
The appeal concerned the Tribunal’s decision of 24 May 2012 refusing an extension. Under the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Acts, the appellant had three years from being informed that he had contracted Hepatitis C to apply. He was told of the infection on 16 June 1999 but did not apply until 2 December 2002, after learning of the scheme in October 2002.
The appellant said exceptional circumstances justified extending the deadline. The court heard his evidence and received, by agreement, a report from consultant psychiatrist Dr. Mona Kilduff. The judgment records that he had longstanding psychiatric difficulties, including anxiety and panic attacks, which escalated in 2000. He was out of work for much of the relevant period and was ultimately retired on health grounds in June 2003.
The judge accepted the evidence about the appellant’s psychological problems and his time away from work. She also said that an applicant’s physical or mental health could, in some circumstances, amount to exceptional circumstances. But she found that the appellant’s health did not explain why he had been unaware of the scheme. He told the court that he did not follow current affairs through newspapers, television or politics. The judgment states that once he learned about the scheme, he was able to contact solicitors and make his claim promptly.
The court said an applicant relying on health problems must show, on the balance of probabilities, that but for those problems they would have applied within the time limit. It found no such causal connection in this case. The judge concluded that the appellant’s lack of knowledge was separate from his health problems and did not establish exceptional circumstances.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal. It did not grant the requested extension of time; the judgment does not determine the underlying compensation claim.