The High Court has extended the time for an anonymised appellant to appeal a 1997 compensation award after finding she did not know she had a right to appeal or that she could ask the court for more time.
The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton on 17 June 2015, concerns an award made by the non-statutory Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal. The appellant had sought an extension of time to challenge the award, with any appeal to be confined to general damages. The court granted the extension; it did not determine the appeal or make a new damages award. The judge said he would discuss the form of the final orders with counsel.
The appellant was diagnosed with hepatitis C in May 1993 after receiving blood products, including factor VII treatment in 1986. The source says she was awarded £408,693 in October 1997: £150,000 for general damages and £158,693 for past and future loss of earnings. It does not explain the remaining £100,000 of the total.
She said she believed she could accept or reject the award but had no right of appeal. She was unaware of the appeal right until consulting solicitors after returning from South Africa in 2002. She was then advised that the time limit had expired, but not that she could apply to extend it. She first learned of that possibility in November 2013 and instructed her current solicitors to bring the application.
The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the appellant should have sought formal legal advice in 2002 and that the delay risked prejudice and uncertainty. The court noted that public notices had stated that appeals had to be lodged by 23 April 1999, but did not mention the power to extend time. The judge accepted the appellant’s evidence that she had not received advice about her appeal rights before 2002 and found that the advice she received then was consistent with the respondent’s publicly stated view of the deadline.
Applying the established approach to extensions of time, the judge found that the appellant had been mistaken about both her right to appeal and her ability to seek an extension. He also found an arguable ground of appeal on general damages, in light of an earlier decision concerning appropriate damages in similar cases. The court concluded that, in the circumstances, refusing an extension would be unjust despite the exceptionally long delay.