The Supreme Court dismissed the Minister for Health and Children’s appeal on the scope of his cross-appeal rights in a Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal case, but allowed his appeal on whether he must formally cross-appeal to support a Tribunal decision.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice William McKechnie on 12 December 2017, concerned claimant C.M.’s appeal against a €400,480 Tribunal award. The Tribunal had found, on the balance of probabilities, that she contracted Hepatitis C after receiving contaminated Anti-D following the birth of her daughter in 1977. Her High Court appeal concerned the amount of the award, not that causation finding.
The Minister sought extra time to cross-appeal the Tribunal’s causation finding. The High Court held that the Minister had no legal entitlement to do so where the claimant’s appeal related only to the award. The Supreme Court considered two questions certified by the High Court: whether the Minister could appeal or cross-appeal findings on causation or compensation, and whether he had to file a cross-appeal whenever a claimant appealed and he wished only to defend the Tribunal’s decision.
The Supreme Court held that under section 5(15) of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997, the Minister may cross-appeal only the subject matter of the claimant’s appeal. Because C.M.’s appeal was limited to quantum, the Minister could not use it to put causation in issue. The Court rejected the Minister’s reliance on the statutory scheme and court rules to argue for a broader right.
On the second question, the Court held that the Minister did not have to file a cross-appeal simply to support the Tribunal’s outcome and reasoning. As a respondent to the claimant’s appeal, he could stand over the decision without taking that step. A cross-appeal would be required if he sought a different result, such as a reduction in the award.
The Court therefore dismissed the Minister’s appeal on the first certified question and allowed it on the second. It did not determine the claimant’s appeal against the amount of her award or make a new compensation award in this judgment.