Kaur, R (On the Application Of) v (Adjudicator's Office & Anor [2023] EWHC 1052 (Admin) (05 May 2023)

Kaur, R (On the Application Of) v (Adjudicator's Office & Anor [2023] EWHC 1052 (Admin) (05 May 2023)

The decision to refuse compensation for loss of access to employment, benefits, and discretionary loss, and to place the claimant at level 3 for 'impact on life', was lawful. The decision-makers considered the relevant gateways under the Scheme, including the new category for those actively seeking employment but unable to progress applications due to lack of status. The claimant's evidence, primarily oral and uncorroborated, was insufficient to establish entitlement on the balance of probabilities. The exclusion of oral refusals from the benefits category did not render the Scheme unlawful or discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. The reasons given were adequate in the context of the...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1052 (Admin)
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
05 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Windrush Compensation Scheme, Judicial Review, Ex Gratia Schemes, Discrimination (article 14 Echr), Public Law Policy Interpretation
Administrative Law Compensation Law Human Rights Windrush Compensation Scheme Judicial Review Ex Gratia Schemes Discrimination (article 14 Echr) Public Law Policy Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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, or 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 'refusal of an application' under the Scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to refuse compensation for loss of access to employment, benefits, and discretionary loss, and to place the claimant at level 3 for 'impact on life', was lawful. The decision-makers considered the relevant gateways under the Scheme, including the new category for those actively seeking employment but unable to progress applications due to lack of status. The claimant's evidence, primarily oral and uncorroborated, was insufficient to establish entitlement on the balance of probabilities. The exclusion of oral refusals from the benefits category did not render the Scheme unlawful or discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. The reasons given were adequate in the context of the...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • No award of compensation beyond the £40,000 already offered under the 'impact on life' category.