The Supreme Court allowed appeals by the Minister for Health and Children and the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal, ruling that a claimant could not both accept a compensation award and appeal it. It also held that the claimant’s appeal was barred because it was brought after the statutory time limit.
The case concerned D.B., whose claim began under a non-statutory compensation scheme and was transferred to the statutory Tribunal established under the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997. The Tribunal made an award on 4 November 1997. D.B. accepted it in writing on 24 November and received the award and a separate payment from the Reparation Fund. He later sought to appeal aspects of the award, including general damages and future loss of earnings.
The High Court had ruled that accepting the award did not prevent an appeal, that the statutory one-month limit did not apply, and that the Tribunal lacked standing to participate. It extended time for D.B.’s appeal to 23 April 1999. The Minister and Tribunal appealed on specified questions of law.
In a judgment delivered on 26 March 2003, the Supreme Court answered yes to all three questions. It held that section 5(9)(a) gave a claimant three mutually exclusive options after notice of an award: accept it, reject it, or appeal it within the prescribed period. A claimant who appeals is deemed to have rejected the award. The Court said D.B.’s acceptance therefore precluded a later appeal, and that the appeal was also outside the statutory deadline.
The Court further held that the Tribunal had standing because the court rules required it to be served with the appeal, making it a party to the proceedings. Its role was limited: it should not contest the merits, but could assist the court by addressing procedure and providing relevant information.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and answered the specified legal questions in the affirmative. The judgment dealt with those preliminary legal issues; it did not decide the merits of D.B.’s challenges to the award.