Widow loses case on compensation

The widow of an English businessman who died after being assaulted in a Dublin hotel in 1997 has lost her High Court challenge…

The widow of an English businessman who died after being assaulted in a Dublin hotel in 1997 has lost her High Court challenge to a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal to reduce a £1.02 million compensation award by £592,000.

Mr Justice Kelly found Ms Angela Tomlinson (43), of Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, had not exhausted the appeal procedures available within the tribunal itself and noted she still had an opportunity to appeal against the reduction.

Ms Tomlinson had claimed the tribunal had reduced the award to her in the context of her having been paid £413,000, described as having a current value of £592,000, on foot of a "death in service" insurance policy in relation to her husband Francis.

Mr Tomlinson, head of marketing with Nomura Capital Management UK Ltd, had been earning over £103,000 a year plus bonuses. He died as a result of an assault in a Dublin hotel on April 20th, 1997. He was 43.

READ MORE

After his death, Ms Tomlinson brought a claim for compensation on her own behalf and on behalf of her three sons. Ms Tomlinson's solicitor, Mr Noel McCartan, in an affidavit said that under the provisions of a pension and life assurance scheme, his client was paid £413,000 under a "death in service" insurance policy. Actuaries had assessed the current value as £592,000.

He was advised that the deduction of £592,000 by the tribunal was in error and made in excess of the tribunal's powers.

The State claimed that the payment of £592,000 was "compensation" and that Ms Tomlinson was not entitled to "double compensation". It said the tribunal had power to deduct the £592,000 and that Ms Tomlinson was entitled to appeal the award if she was dissatisfied.

In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly noted that, as was usual, Ms Tomlinson's application for compensation was dealt with by a single member of the tribunal, on paper and without any oral hearing.

Mr Justice Kelly referred to case law indicating a marked reluctance on the courts to intervene where there was no final determination by the tribunal.