Moore, R (on the application of) v Skipton Fund Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 3070 (Admin) (01 December 2010)

Moore, R (on the application of) v Skipton Fund Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 3070 (Admin) (01 December 2010)

The requirement that applicants prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Hepatitis C infection persisted beyond six months is not irrational or unlawful, given the statistical improbability of such persistence and the ex gratia nature of the Scheme; the guidance in question was not unpublished or inconsistent with the published criteria, and the category of potential beneficiaries is not empty or illusory.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3070 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Sharon Moore; First Defendant: Skipton Fund Limited; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Health
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Ex Gratia Compensation Schemes, Judicial Review of Compensation Schemes, Burden of Proof in Compensation Claims, Contaminated Blood Products, Eligibility Criteria for Compensation, Unpublished Policy Guidance
Administrative Law Public Law Health Law Ex Gratia Compensation Schemes Judicial Review of Compensation Schemes Burden of Proof in Compensation Claims Contaminated Blood Products Eligibility Criteria for Compensation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharon Moore

Claimant

Skipton Fund Limited

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the burden of proving persistence of Hepatitis C infection beyond six months under the Skipton Fund Scheme is irrational or unlawful
  2. 2 Whether unpublished or undisclosed guidance used by the Secretary of State for Health or the Skipton Fund was unlawful or inconsistent with published criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement that applicants prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Hepatitis C infection persisted beyond six months is not irrational or unlawful, given the statistical improbability of such persistence and the ex gratia nature of the Scheme; the guidance in question was not unpublished or inconsistent with the published criteria, and the category of potential beneficiaries is not empty or illusory.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review against the Secretary of State for Health is dismissed
  • No order as to reconsideration by the Skipton Fund, as claim disposed of by consent