Accordingly, the Crown Court had had jurisdiction over the appeal and the appeal on the backdating issue had been rightly decided (see [71] of the judgment).
R (on the application of Carter and another) v Chelmsford Crown Court (2019) applied.
(3) Whether there was power under the Regulations to award interest and whether there was another legal or equitable basis for an award of interest.
K had not been further entitled to interest. The Regulations themselves made no provision for the payment of interest. The present was a matter of statutory interpretation where reliance on a general equitable power (and one which, in most cases, was irrelevant because of statutory provisions) did not assist. It followed that the Crown Court had no power to include interest in its larger award
The full decision can be found using the following link
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/210.html
This was subsequently appealed on the grounds that the Crown Court could award interest-
R (on the application of the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police) v Kelly and another [2021] All ER (D) 82 (Nov)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant’s appeal in a dispute concerning the respondent’s entitlement to a back-dated injury pension regarding the jurisdiction of the Crown Court and retrospective entitlement but allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal against the decision of the Crown Court that it had no power to award interest. The court held, among other things, that (i) if the second limb of Reg 34 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006/932 (PIBR) had been intended to be limited to the calculation of annual injury pension, the word ‘annual’ could easily have been included; (ii) the true purpose of PIBR Reg 43(1) had been to provide, consistently with PIBR Reg 11(1), that once entitlement was established, the pension would prima facie be payable for life from the date of retirement; and (iii) the Crown Court had power to include interest in the award and it was just to do so within PIBR Reg 34.
The judgment is available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1699.html