VERNON VANRIEL, R (on the application of) v THE ADJUDICATOR’S OFFICE

A clear agreement accepting compensation in full and final settlement can bind a claimant and preclude later judicial review proceedings seeking increased compensation. Such an agreement does not oust the court’s jurisdiction: challenges to the settlement itself, including for misrepresentation or other vitiating circumstances, remain possible. Finality of settlements with public bodies is consistent with public policy. The court will not determine settled claims, even on a theoretical basis or where no further payment is sought. In construing a settlement or compensation scheme, the court applies ordinary principles of construction and does not admit later declarations of subjective intention from a scheme drafter.

The claimant, a member of the Windrush generation, sought judicial review of decisions under the Windrush Compensation Scheme refusing additional compensation for loss of access to benefits. He had accepted and been paid £103,501.31, signing a form stating that the sum was accepted as full and final settlement of his claim.

Permission was granted on the settlement issue and on two substantive grounds concerning the construction of Annex I and alleged rights under Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimant argued that the settlement did not prevent judicial review and that the court should determine issues of wider public importance. The central questions were whether the settlement was binding and whether the court should nevertheless determine the substantive grounds.

1. The claims were dismissed. The claimant’s acceptance of £103,501.31 as full and final settlement ended his claim and precluded further proceedings, including judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge or increase the award.
2. The words used in the signed acceptance form were unambiguous. They were not confined to claims made under the Scheme. Rule 9.3 reinforced, rather than narrowed, that effect by settling both the claim made and any claim which might have been brought under the Scheme. The Scheme’s purpose of compensating losses did not require a different construction. It expressly contemplated awards below actual losses, fixed awards, excluded categories and negotiated finality.
3. The settlement was supported by consideration. The claimant obtained the genuine advantage of immediate payment, whereas the Scheme did not require staged payment of undisputed sums and payment otherwise depended on acceptance of the determination. There was no pleaded or evidenced duress, misrepresentation, fraud, incapacity or other vitiating circumstance.
4. A public law claim may, between the parties to a settlement, be finally resolved by agreement. This did not amount to an ouster of jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction to determine disputes about the settlement itself or its enforceability, but would not determine a claim which had been settled, even hypothetically or solely to provide guidance for others. The claimant no longer had a sufficient interest in Grounds 4 and 5, and pursuing them was an abuse of process.
5. The later witness statement of Martin Forde KC was inadmissible on construction. Subjective intention or understanding, supplied after the settlement and not available to the parties when the Scheme was published or accepted, could not establish the meaning of the Scheme or agreement. The court would have reached the same conclusion without it.

The judgment itself records an earlier decision concerning the claimant’s immigration status:

• High Court: The decision in R (Vanriel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] QB 737 cleared the way for the claimant to become a British citizen.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The present judicial review claims were dismissed.