The Supreme Court has ruled that the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal can award interest on compensation in appropriate cases, overturning a High Court decision that had found otherwise.
The appeal was brought by M. O’C, whose wife contracted Hepatitis C after receiving contaminated Anti-D in May 1977. He claimed compensation for earnings lost after he curtailed his teaching career and ultimately retired in 1989 because of the demands of caring for her.
The Tribunal initially rejected his loss-of-earnings claim. On appeal, the High Court allowed it and awarded him £60,559. That compensation figure was not challenged before the Supreme Court.
The remaining issue was whether interest could be added under section 22 of the Courts Act 1981. The High Court had ruled that the Tribunal was not a court and therefore had no power under that section to award interest. It also held that the High Court, hearing an appeal from the Tribunal, could not exercise a jurisdiction that the Tribunal itself lacked.
Mrs Justice Denham disagreed with that interpretation. She focused on section 5(1) of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997, which provides that Tribunal awards are to be made on the same basis as High Court awards, using tort damages principles and relevant statutory provisions.
The Supreme Court held that section 22 of the Courts Act was such a relevant statutory provision. On both a literal reading of the legislation and by considering its purpose, the court found that the Tribunal was intended, so far as compensation was concerned, to operate on the same basis as the High Court.
The ruling does not mean M. O’C automatically receives interest. The court held only that the power exists. His case was remitted to the High Court so the judge could exercise the statutory discretion and decide whether interest should be awarded.