CN (R on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

CN (R on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

It is not arguable that CN is in a relevantly similar position to HIV and HCV sufferers covered by the EIBSS, and even if there were different treatment, the Secretary of State can objectively justify the exclusion based on screening history, numbers affected, and social policy. The application was out of time as exclusion was not a continuing act.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: CN; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; Interested Party: NHS Business Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal Against Refusal of Permission
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Judicial Review, Ex Gratia Schemes, European Convention on Human Rights, Equality Act
Constitutional Law Human Rights Administrative Law Discrimination Judicial Review Ex Gratia Schemes European Convention on Human Rights Equality Act

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CN

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Respondent/defendant

NHS Business Authority

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal Against Refusal of Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of hepatitis B sufferers from the England Infected Blood Support Scheme is discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's conduct falls within the ambit of Article 8 and Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether CN is in a relevantly similar position to HIV and HCV sufferers

Ratio Decidendi

It is not arguable that CN is in a relevantly similar position to HIV and HCV sufferers covered by the EIBSS, and even if there were different treatment, the Secretary of State can objectively justify the exclusion based on screening history, numbers affected, and social policy. The application was out of time as exclusion was not a continuing act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against refusal of permission to apply for judicial review dismissed
  • No extension of time granted for bringing the claim