A senior judge has ruled a tribunal should have used a dictionary to ascertain the meaning of the word “skull” during its deliberations on a criminal injuries claim. 

Lord Brailsford ruled the First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (FTT) made a mistake over the meaning of the word in one of its rulings. 

The tribunal was asked to consider a case brought before it by a man who wanted to appeal a decision made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. 

The male, who hasn’t been named, was assaulted and suffered a broken nose in May 2015. The board concluded his injuries weren’t covered by its guidelines and he didn’t receive compensation. 

However, the tribunal overturned the board’s decision, saying the man’s injuries were covered by the guidelines. The tribunal concluded the man’s nose formed part of his skull and made an undisclosed award. 

The advocate general for Scotland, Lord Keen of Elie, QC, appealed the tribunal’s findings before the nation’s highest civil court, the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

His legal bid came weeks after he appeared before the UK Supreme Court about the Prime Minister’s bid to prorogue Parliament.

Lord Keen’s representative, advocate Christopher Pirie, argued the tribunal hadn’t applied the proper understanding of the word skull. 

Yesterday, Lord Brailsford agreed and quashed the FTT ruling. In a written judgment issued at the court, he wrote: “The definition relied upon by the tribunal was at odds with dictionary definitions relied upon by counsel for the petitioners. In the context of statutory interpretation, it is of course, legitimate to consult dictionaries in common use as a means to ascertain the meaning of a word. The dictionary should be ‘well known and authoritative’. 

“It is, in my view, routine practice in court to have regard primarily to the Oxford English Dictionary if an aid to interpretation of a word is required. 

“The position is, however, different in relation to terms of words which either have a technical meaning or are used in a technical sense. The word ‘skull’ no doubt has an everyday English meaning as is exemplified by the definitions of dictionaries including the Oxford English Dictionary, produced and relied upon by counsel for the petitioner.  

  • READ MORE: Police Scotland stop and search seven year old girl in drug suspicion

“The word is also capable of having a technical meaning that could be different to that of the one in everyday usage. 

“It is in the technical sense the FTT and counsel for the interested party sought to construe the word ‘skull’. 

The judgment tells of how in 2008, the criminal injuries compensation guidelines had provision for broken noses. People could claim £1,000, £1,500 or £2,000 depending how serious their injuries were. 

However, the guidelines were revised in 2012 and provision for broken nose injuries claims were removed.

Lord Brailsford then quashed the tribunal’s decision.