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.
Source excerpt
- Judicial review
- Ex gratia compensation
- Windrush compensation scheme
- Discrimination (article 14 echr)
- Evidentiary standards
- Statutory interpretation