Surjit Kaur, R (on the application of) v Adjudicator's Office & Anor.

An ex gratia compensation scheme is construed objectively, as a reasonable claimant would read it, having regard to its terms and overall purpose. Under the Windrush Compensation Scheme, an application for benefits ordinarily requires submission of the claim required for the benefit; an oral refusal to entertain a possible claim is not itself an application refused. Categories in Annexes B–H are exhaustive within their subject matter and cannot be circumvented through the discretionary category in Annex I. Limiting benefit compensation to actual applications was rationally connected to reliable verification of loss and was justified under Article 14. Decision-makers may assess sparse historic evidence holistically and give brief reasons, provided the principal issue and evidential conclusion are sufficiently clear.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions awarding her £40,000 under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. She challenged the refusal of awards for loss of access to employment, loss of access to benefits and a discretionary award, and challenged the level of her Impact on Life award.

The employment challenge concerned the newly introduced gateway for persons actively seeking employment who could not progress applications because they could not demonstrate lawful status. The benefits challenge concerned oral statements that she could not claim benefits without proof of status. The central issues were the proper construction of the Scheme, the adequacy and rationality of the reasons, and whether the benefits rule discriminated contrary to Article 14.

1. Claim dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision, upheld by the Adjudicator, was lawful.
2. Construction and evidence. The court must determine the objective meaning of the Scheme as a reasonable claimant would understand it, reading the provisions in context and in light of their overall purpose. Decision-makers may take a broad and holistic view of historic evidence, including documentary gaps, inherent probabilities and experience of similar claims.
3. Employment. The reviewer had considered the gateway for a claimant actively seeking employment who was unable to progress applications because of inability to demonstrate lawful status. The references to deferring progression were read in context and did not show that the wrong gateway had been applied. The reasons sufficiently explained why the evidence did not establish causation on the balance of probabilities. The claimant’s ability to travel and obtain an ILE endorsement was not directly decisive, but was a permissible factor in the overall assessment.
4. Benefits. The natural meaning of “applied for” and “that application was refused” in Annex E required an actual benefit claim to have been submitted using the form or process required for the benefit. An oral statement discouraging a claim did not satisfy that requirement. The distinction from employment was material because employment applications may be oral, whereas benefit claims ordinarily require a formal claim.
5. Annex I. Annexes B–H established exhaustive regimes for losses within their respective categories. Loss of access to benefits within Annex E could not be recovered under Annex I merely because the Annex E conditions were not met.
6. Article 14. The court could not rule out “other status” at the status stage. Applying the proportionality test in Bank Mellat, however, the actual-application requirement pursued reliable and verifiable compensation, was rationally connected to that aim, and was justified given the broad margin applicable to general social policy without a suspect ground.
7. Impact on Life. The decision-maker was entitled to form an overall view of the reliable impact proved and give brief reasons for placing the claim at level 3 rather than level 4. No irrationality or substantial prejudice was established.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review decision. The claim challenged decisions of the Secretary of State, upheld through the Home Office review process and by the Adjudicator’s Office.