The High Court has extended the time for D. F. to bring an appeal against the rejection of his claim for compensation connected to his wife’s hepatitis C. The court found that the deadline could be extended and that the proposed appeal was arguable. It did not decide whether he was entitled to compensation.
D. F. had sought compensation from the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal for financial losses he said he suffered after giving up work in 1990 to care for his son. His wife, identified in the judgment as MF, had contracted hepatitis C and received compensation from the Tribunal. D. F. argued that caring for their son was, in substance, care for his wife because her illness prevented her from providing that care. He also advanced an alternative argument based on his wife’s alleged right to compensation for the cost of his services.
The Tribunal rejected his claim on 5 April 2001, deciding that he was not eligible under section 4(1)(d) of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997. D. F. was notified of a right to appeal. An appeal notice was lodged on 22 August 2001 but returned as out of time. He then applied to the High Court to extend the filing period.
The Minister for Health and Children argued that the one-month limit in the applicable court rule could not be extended. The court rejected that submission. It held that an appeal against refusal of an award was brought under section 5(15), which contains no time limit, and that the one-month period in Order 105A, rule 2(2) could be extended under Order 122, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
In exercising that discretion, the judge accepted that D. F. formed an intention to appeal within the one-month period and inferred that his solicitor had made an error about the applicable deadline amid uncertainty about the route to challenge the Tribunal’s decision. The court also found an arguable basis to contend that caring for a child who needed substantial parental care, when the child’s mother could not provide it because of hepatitis C, could amount to care for the mother under the Act.
The order extends the time to bring the appeal. The judgment does not reverse the Tribunal’s decision or determine the merits of D. F.’s compensation claim.