In the case of Boskovic v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police (April 2019)  EWCA Civ 676
The issue arising on this appeal is whether the judge at first instance was wrong to find that the Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police acted lawfully in refusing to exercise the power under regulation 32(2) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (“the 2006 Regulations”) to refer the appellant’s case back to a medical authority for reconsideration of her entitlement to an injury.
The appeal was dismissed and the judge’s decision upheld on the bases set out his judgment and in the respondent’s notice, for the following reasons:
- Regulation 32(2) of the 2006 Regulations should be construed as a consensual and facilitative provision allowing reconsideration of questions affecting pension entitlement by
- In deciding whether or not to agree to a request for a reference under regulation 32(2), the police pension authority must act reasonably, taking into account only relevant
- The weight to be attached to the relevant considerations is a matter for the decision
- The merits of the underlying claim are one factor, but in assessing the merits the authority is entitled to take into account the fact that the evidence is not clear-cut.
- In assessing the questions under regulation 30(2)(c) and (d), the SMP is bound by the answers of an earlier SMP who carried out an assessment of the questions under regulation H1(2)(a) and (b) of the 1987 Regulations, but not by any diagnosis underpinning those
- A police authority is entitled to take into account any uncertainty about the diagnosis when deciding whether to agree to a reference under regulation 32(2) of the 2006
- Amongst the other factors which a police authority is entitled to take into account when deciding whether or not to agree to a reference under regulation 32(2) is any delay in pursuing the claim, together with the costs of any
Given the length of the delay in this case, and the uncertainty about the diagnosis, Kerr J was entitled, and indeed right, to conclude that it was open to the Chief Constable to conclude that a fair reconsideration of Ms Boskovic’s claim for an injury pension would not be possible.
See attached link for the full judgment.