R (MW) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)

When deciding whether exceptional circumstances justified extending a time limit under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, the decision-maker must consider material evidence about whether the applicant received the decision notice and understood its significance. Failure to address an expressly raised submission on that issue is an error of law. The matter should be reconsidered where receipt, knowledge or understanding of the notice could affect whether the applicant could comply with the time limit.

MW sought judicial review of a First-tier Tribunal decision dismissing his appeal against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority’s refusal to extend time for seeking review of an earlier compensation decision. The First-tier Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that MW had received the original decision letter. It did not address a solicitor’s written submission that he had never received it, or MW’s evidence that he had not received it.

The central issue was whether that omission affected the assessment of exceptional circumstances under paragraph 102(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012.

1. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was quashed under section 15(1)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
2. Paragraph 102(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 required consideration of whether exceptional circumstances meant that MW could not have complied with the applicable review time limit. Whether he received the decision notice, and whether he understood its significance, were potentially relevant matters.
3. The First-tier Tribunal had overlooked the solicitor’s express submission that MW had never received the rejection of his claim. The hearing had instead proceeded on the assumption that he had received the letter. That omission was material because non-delivery, lack of knowledge, or inability to understand the notice could bear on the exceptional-circumstances question.
4. The Upper Tribunal did not accept MW’s criticisms of the conduct or length of the First-tier Tribunal hearing. The judge had conducted the hearing calmly and efficiently, and had investigated MW’s mental state and ability to function. Those findings did not cure the failure to address the receipt and understanding of the decision notice.
5. The matter was remitted under section 17(1)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 for reconsideration of whether there were exceptional circumstances relevant to paragraph 102(b).

• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): dismissed MW’s appeal against CICA’s refusal to extend time, decision dated 4 September 2024.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): quashed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.