Ryan v Compensation Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1997
• Date: 01 January 1997
• Court: High Court

(H.C.)

Ryan

and

Compensation Tribunal

- Appropriateness of remedy - Discretionary remedy - Whether certiorari appropriate where no practical benefit for applicant -Non- statutory tribunal - Ex gratia payments - Award of compensation - Whether award unreasonable -Whether error of law on face of award - Role of court in reviewing award - Factors to be taken into account in calculating level of award - Whether voluntary assistance of claimant's family relevant factor -Relevance of statutory benefits in calculating claimant's previous income - Whether tribunal entitled to reject evidence - Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 1964 (No. 17), s. 2 - Health (Amendment) Act, 1996 (No. 15), s. 2.

The government established a tribunal under a non- statutory scheme to compensate certain persons who had contracted hepatitis C from the use of human immunoglobulin anti-D. The scheme provided for the making of ex gratia payments. Awards of the tribunal were to be calculated by reference to the principles which govern the measure of damages in the law of tort. The applicant, who had contracted hepatitis C as a result of an injection of contaminated anti-D in 1978, made a claim to the tribunal. The tribunal made a decision to award her the sum of IR£205,000 made up as follows: future loss of earnings IR£25,000; provision of help in the home IR£35,000; nursing care IR£5,000; and general damages IR£140,000. In determining the sums for future loss of earnings and the provision of help in the home, the tribunal had had regard to social welfare payments received by the applicant and the prospective family circumstances, respectively. In the case of the latter it noted that the need for child minding would diminish as the children got older and that as they got older the children would be able to assist their mother in the home. The applicant sought to challenge the decision in a number of respects, alleging that the respondent tribunal had acted unreasonably, had taken irrelevant considerations into account, and that the award contained an error of law on its face. It was also argued that the sum in respect of general damages was inadequate to the extent of being irrational. S. 2 of the Health (Amendment) Act, 1996, which was enacted prior to the decision of the tribunal but was not brought into operation until after the decision, provides that health boards are obliged to make certain services including home help, available to persons who contracted hepatitis C...