Moore, R (on the application of) v Skipton Fund Ltd & Anor

It is not irrational or unlawful for the compensation scheme to place the burden of proof on applicants to show persistence of Hepatitis C infection beyond six months, given the statistical improbability of spontaneous clearance after that period and the scheme's objectives. The guidance was not meaningfully unpublished and was consistent with the published criteria.

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
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Ex Gratia Compensation Schemes, Judicial Review, Burden of Proof, Unpublished Guidance, Medical Evidence

Administrative Law Public Health Law Ex Gratia Compensation Schemes Judicial Review Burden of Proof Unpublished Guidance Medical Evidence

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Sharon Moore

Claimant

Skipton Fund Limited

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the burden of proving persistence of Hepatitis C infection beyond six months is irrational or unlawful in the context of the compensation scheme
2 Whether unpublished guidance used by the Secretary of State for Health and Skipton Fund was unlawful or inconsistent with published policy

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed