Category listing
Compensation
R on the application of Linda Ann Soper v CICAP
(Multipliers to future of the cost of life time care)
The Applicant of was injured and applied for compensation. The Board made a full award and calculated the award based on the fact that the Applicant had a pre-existing condition. The Court upheld the award and confirmed the Board's approach of applying multipliers to the future cost of lifetime care and future receipt of care related benefits.
Paragraphs 12 and 19 of the 1990 Scheme
QBD - 02/05/02 - l 18 -CofA- 12/12/02- J08 (9C)
R Linda Ann Soper v CICAP CofA 12-12-0 
(134kb)
R Linda Ann Soper v CICAP QBD 02-05-02 (402kb)
Cantwell v CICB
(Pensions deduction under Paragraph 20 of the 1990 Scheme)
The Court confirmed the decision by the Board under Paragraph 20 of the 1990 Scheme upholding that the Board's approach was correct. The Board had to ask firstly what did the Plaintiff lose as a result of the accident? What are the sums which he would have received but which by reason of the accident he can no longer get? And secondly what are the sums which he did infact receive as a result of the accident but which he would not have received if there had been no accident. The later sum must be deducted from the former in assessing the damage.
1990 Scheme
Court of Session and House of Lords 05/7/01 - H08 (8C)
Cantwell v CICB (1.45mb)
R v CICB ex parte S Williams
(Medical re-opening – effect of subsequent injury - misdiagnosis of original injury, serious change has to be directly attributable to the original injury)
Police Officer accepted a final award for compensation. He was later discharged from his job due to ongoing problems. He applied to re-open his claim. His application to re-open was refused. Subsequently, to the index injury he had hurt his back twice in the course of his employment and this aggravated his existing back condition. The decision of the Board was quashed by the Court. The medical evidence confirmed that subsequent events would not have harmed the Applicant's uninjured back. Susceptibility to later injuries arose from the ongoing injury, so the Officer's back problems resulting in medical retirement were directly attributable to the original injury.
1990 Scheme
QBD - 03/12/99 - H05- Court of Appeal - 27/6/00 - (7C)
R v CICB ex parte Williams (220.54kb)
The Queen v CICB ex parte Williams (276.30kb)
R v CICB ex parte Kavanagh
(R v CICB ex parte AM and M Kavanagh
The application was made on behalf of 2 children whose mother had been murdered . The children were looked after by their uncle and aunt. The Board made a reduced award to the children because they found that the general parental services provided by the childrens aunty and uncle were as good as those provided by the children's mother before her death. The Court could quashed the Board's decision finding that in so far as the value of replacement services from the benefit resulted from the death, they must be disregarded when assessing damages.
1990 Scheme
QBD - 30/07/98 - G 03- 6(c)
R v CICB ex parte Kavanagh (162.83kb)
R v CICB ex parte Lazzari
Deduction of DSS Benefits – Board has no discretion.QBD - 14/05/93 - G 07(5C)
R v CICB ex parte Lazzari (113.90kb)
R v CICB ex parte Earls
Award – vesting – death of applicant.CofA - 21/12/82 - A 18(4C)
R v CICB ex parte Earls (700.76kb)
R v CICB ex parte Westrop
Award - effect of civil damages.QBD - 18/02/80 - A 14(3C)
R v CICB ex parte Westrop (153.72kb)
R v CICB ex parte McGuffie & Smith
Quantum - loss of mother's services – treatment of.Boarding Out Allowance.QBD - 13/01/77 - A 11(2C)
R v CICB ex parte McGuffie and Smith (166.75kb)
R v CICB ex parte Tong
Award – vesting – without acceptance.QBD - 15/07/75 - A 09CofA - 14/06/76(1C)
R v CICB ex parte Tong (658.81kb)
Roger Geoffrey Vick v CICAP
In the case of a police officer who was injured by a criminal assault the issue was whether the Panel were correct to decide that state benefits and pensions payable to the claimant should be taken into account so as to reduce his gross award, not only up to his fifty-fifth birthday (which was not in dispute) but continuing thereafter as well.
The Court held that the Panel was wrong and their decision quashed.
Paragraphs 31, 45 and 47 of the 1996 Scheme.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995.
Administrative Court - 24/06/05
Vick v CICAP (335kb)
