Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Tim Lamb QC and Guy Opperman (instructed by FDC Law) for the Appellant Jonathan Crow and Ruth Downing (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent Hearing date: 11 February 2004 ____________________
It will be for the applicant to make out his case�. Where an applicant is represented, the costs of representation will not be met by the Authority.
A claims officer may make such directions and arrangements for the conduct of an application, including the imposition of conditions, as he considers appropriate in all the circumstances. The standard of proof to be applied by a claims officer in all matters before him will be the balance of probabilities.
Where a claims officer considers that an examination of the injury is required before a decision can be reached, the Authority will make arrangements for such an examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner. Reasonable expenses incurred by the applicant in that connection will be met by the Authority.
Once that agreement is reached, the Authority will take the instructions of the applicant or his representative as to which annuity or annuities should be purchased. Any expenses incurred will be met from the award.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.