In a major setback for victims seeking additional compensation for hepatitis C infection from contaminated blood products, the Supreme Court has ruled that victims who accepted awards from the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal cannot appeal those awards to the courts
The five-judge court also decided that victims who wished to appeal awards of the tribunal must do so within the time specified in the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act, 1997. That Act provides that a claim may be made within a month of the tribunal making an award or such other period as prescribed by the Minister for Health and Children.
The Supreme Court was granting the State's appeal against a High Court judgment of July 2002 which had left the State open to paying out millions of euros on top of the awards already made by the tribunal.
Payments to date by the tribunal have reached €90 million.
The appeal arose after the High Court decided that a man could appeal an award from the tribunal to the High Court. The man had HIV but also contracted hepatitis C from infected blood products. In late 1997, the tribunal determined he was entitled to £250,000 compensation, less £125,000 as a result of his co- infection with HIV, leaving a total of £125,000. An appeal against that award was brought in April 1999.
The Minister for Health and Children and the compensation tribunal challenged the entitlement to bring an appeal outside the time specified in the 1997 Act. The High Court ruled in favour of the man but the Supreme Court yesterday overturned that decision. The case was regarded as a test case and its outcome was being awaited by many others who had accepted compensation through the tribunal.
The High Court had given leave for the Supreme Court appeal to be taken on three points of law. In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided that a claimant who wished to appeal an award by the tribunal was barred from doing so after the time specified in the 1997 Act.
It also ruled that a claimant who had accepted an award of the tribunal was barred from appealing that award. On the third point, it found the tribunal had the required legal standing to appear in an application to the High Court or in an appeal.
On behalf of the Minister, it was accepted that persons who contracted hepatitis C from infected blood products were entitled to compensation. However, it argued the statutory tribunal was an alternative means of getting compensation and persons who proceeded under the 1997 Act and accepted the remedies under it were subject to its conditions.
Counsel for the tribunal said the purpose of the Act was not just to compensate hepatitis C victims. Another objective was to deal with the administrative problem faced due to the volume of claims by victims which, in the absence of the Act, would otherwise have proceeded in the High Court.
Lawyers for the man had argued that the court should look to the essential purpose of the Act, which was to provide "just" and "appropriate" compensation for loss suffered. If the literal meaning of the Act did not accord with that purpose, the court should look beyond it, it was submitted.
In her decision, Ms Justice Denham, presiding, said section 5 (9a) of the Act gave a claimant the option of using the tribunal to achieve an award in lieu of going to the courts. It was a statutory scheme and established in clear language that there was a time limit within which to make a decision under the scheme.
There was a fluidity at the initial steps of the scheme, she said.Claimants could apply to the tribunal for an award without affecting their right to apply to court. Time was frozen while such a claim was made. However, once an award was made to the claimant, the claimant had a specified time in which to decide to stay within the tribunal system or not.
There were three choices and they were put in the form of two main alternatives under the statute. Claimants might either accept or reject the award. Alternatively, they might appeal the award under sub-section 15. The words were plain and clear. The claimant must do one of the three alternatives. If a claimant accepted the award, they had taken one of the alternatives and could not proceed otherwise. If they rejected the award, they might move into another arena.
If the claimant made no choice, they were deemed to have rejected the award. The case is to be mentioned in the Supreme Court again on April 4th after the sides have had time to consider yesterday's decision.