Surjit Kaur, R (on the application of) v Adjudicator's Office & Anor.

Surjit Kaur, R (on the application of) v Adjudicator's Office & Anor.

The decision to refuse compensation for loss of access to employment and benefits, and to award Level 3 (not Level 4) for 'Impact on Life', was lawful. The Scheme requires actual (written) applications for benefits; oral refusals do not suffice. The decision-makers gave adequate reasons, acted rationally, and were entitled to assess the evidence as they did. The exclusion of oral applications is not unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR, as it is justified by the need for verifiability and protection of public funds.

Parties
Claimant: Surjit Kaur (acting by her litigation friend Steven Boparai); First Defendant: Adjudicator’s Office; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Ex Gratia Compensation, Windrush Compensation Scheme, Discrimination (article 14 Echr), Evidentiary Standards, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Compensation Schemes Human Rights Judicial Review Ex Gratia Compensation Windrush Compensation Scheme Discrimination (article 14 Echr) Evidentiary Standards +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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surjit Kaur (acting by her litigation friend Steven Boparai)

Claimant

Adjudicator’s Office

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to award compensation for loss of access to employment, benefits, and discretionary loss under the Windrush Compensation Scheme was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the decision to place the Claimant at Level 3 (not Level 4) for 'Impact on Life' was lawful
  3. 3 Whether oral refusals to permit benefit applications fall within the meaning of 'application refused' under the Scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to refuse compensation for loss of access to employment and benefits, and to award Level 3 (not Level 4) for 'Impact on Life', was lawful. The Scheme requires actual (written) applications for benefits; oral refusals do not suffice. The decision-makers gave adequate reasons, acted rationally, and were entitled to assess the evidence as they did. The exclusion of oral applications is not unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR, as it is justified by the need for verifiability and protection of public funds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • No compensation is payable under the challenged heads of the Windrush Compensation Scheme.