Radko Belkovic's Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Humphreys J |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] NIKB 2 |
| Date | 23 January 2024 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2024] NIKB 2
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: HUM12390
Delivered: 23/01/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS BY RADKO BELKOVIC
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
___________
The Applicant appeared in person
Philip McAteer (instructed by Elliott Duffy Garrett) for the proposed Respondent
___________
HUMPHREYS J
Introduction
[1] By way of four separate applications for leave to apply for judicial review, the
applicant seeks to challenge decisions made by the proposed respondent, the
Northern Ireland Public Service Ombudsman (‘NIPSO’).
[2] Since each of these challenges has overlapping themes and factual
connections, it is convenient to deal with each of them in a single judgment.
[3] The applicant has also launched interlocutory applications in each case:
(i) Seeking to strike out the proposed respondent’s defence pursuant to Order 18
rule 19 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980 (‘the
Rules’); and
(ii) Seeking discovery of documents from the proposed respondent by virtue of
the provisions of section 32 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and
Order 24 of the Rules.
[4] I will also address these applications in this judgment.
2
[5] I propose to set out, in broad terms, the background to these applications for
leave and then set out a number of general principles which are common to each
application before considering the merits of each case.
Background
Application No. 1
[6] On 2 November 2016 the applicant applied to the Health and Social Care
Board (‘HSCB’) for funding in relation to medical treatment which he sought to
obtain in the Czech Republic, made pursuant to EU Directive 2011/24 on Cross
Border Healthcare. This was approved in principle by the HSCB on 1 September
2017 but limited the amount claimable to the total equivalent cost of treatment in
Northern Ireland. This scheme provides for reimbursement of amounts paid by the
patient to healthcare providers, subject to that limit.
[7] Subsequently, on 4 July 2018 the applicant made a further application to the
HSCB pursuant to both the EU Directive and the S2 route which permits similar
funding via a different process.
[8] S2 funding is only applicable in circumstances where the same treatment is
not available in Northern Ireland within a medically appropriate timescale. For that
reason, the applicant was asked on 23 July 2018 to furnish a report from a consultant
within this jurisdiction confirming that the potential wait for treatment was
medically inappropriate. This was not supplied, and the application rejected on
10 September 2018.
[9] On 14 December 2018 the applicant issued complaints to the HSCB in relation
to the manner in which his applications for funding had been treated. These
resulted in a decision made by the HSCB on 19 March 2019 to the effect that the
complaints were not upheld and that the applications had been correctly processed.
[10] A meeting was held on 23 May 2019 between the applicant and the HSCB at
which the complaints were aired. Following this, the HSCB confirmed, in a letter
dated 8 July 2019, that its position in respect of the complaints remained unchanged.
[11] On 22 July 2019 the applicant made a complaint to NIPSO in relation to the
handling of his applications by HSCB. On 7 October 2019 NIPSO communicated to
the applicant its decision that the complaint ought not to be accepted for
investigation. The Investigating Officer had considered all the evidence submitted
by the applicant and the written response and supporting documentation from the
HSCB. It was concluded that there was no prima facie evidence of
maladministration on the part of HSCB. The policies and the procedures of the
HSCB had, on the available evidence, been followed. The Investigating Officer did
identify a delay in the processing of the applicant’s 2016 application but in light of
To continue reading
Request your trial