The High Court has quashed a Residential Institutions Redress Board decision striking out a man’s request to extend the time for applying for compensation over alleged physical abuse in residential care. The court remitted the matter to the Board for reconsideration; it did not decide whether he was entitled to redress or whether an extension should be granted.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as Mr O’S, said he had suffered physical abuse as a child in a residential institution. His application for compensation was made under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002.
The judgment recounts that an earlier application was filed in 2005 by another firm of solicitors. The Board rejected it in 2010, and a Review Committee upheld that decision. In 2011, Mr O’S’s new solicitors submitted a late application. They later told the Board that his history of drug and alcohol abuse had affected his ability to engage with the earlier application.
In March 2013, the Board directed him to provide proof that he met the statutory requirements for an extension of time. At a hearing on 26 April, his solicitor said he could not provide the proof as directed and sought an adjournment or an oral hearing. The Board refused and struck out the request. It confirmed the decision in writing on 29 April.
Mr O’S challenged the strike-out by judicial review. The court accepted that the Board could require evidence of exceptional circumstances, but found that the direction did not say what kind of evidence was required. Because non-compliance could lead to the request being struck out, the applicant needed to know in advance what he was required to produce, the judgment said.
The judge also found that the Board had failed to treat the 2002 Act as a remedial statute, which required it to take a generous view of the difficulties faced by people seeking redress. The court considered that the Board did not give sufficient weight to the medical concerns raised by the solicitor or to the applicant’s circumstances. It rejected a separate argument that the Board had relied on an irrelevant matter, finding that its predominant concern was the failure to comply with the direction.
The court ordered the 29 April 2013 decision quashed and the application remitted to the Board for reconsideration. The order did not determine the merits of the compensation claim or require the Board to grant an extension.