McGinley, R (on the application of) v Schilling

McGinley, R (on the application of) v Schilling

The medical referee, when determining an appeal under Regulation H2 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, must decide the questions referred as at the date of his own decision, considering all evidence then available, not merely reviewing the correctness of the selected medical practitioner's certificate at the earlier date.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mary Catherine McGinley; Defendant: Dr CJ Schilling; Interested Party/appellant; Claimant/appellant: Metropolitan Police Authority; Defendant: Dr EP Beck; Interested Party/respondent: Stephen Batchelor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (joined Appeals) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Point of Law
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Police Pensions, Statutory Interpretation, Medical Appeals, Injury Pensions
Administrative Law Pensions Law Police Pensions Statutory Interpretation Medical Appeals Injury Pensions

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Catherine McGinley

Claimant/respondent

Dr CJ Schilling

Defendant

Metropolitan Police Authority

Interested Party/appellant; Claimant/appellant

Dr EP Beck

Defendant

Stephen Batchelor

Interested Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (joined Appeals) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Point of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a medical referee on appeal under Regulation H2 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 determines the matter as at the date of the selected medical practitioner's certificate or as at the date of the referee's own decision and on up-to-date evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The medical referee, when determining an appeal under Regulation H2 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, must decide the questions referred as at the date of his own decision, considering all evidence then available, not merely reviewing the correctness of the selected medical practitioner's certificate at the earlier date.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent in both appeals
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused