Susan Cotterill, who has appeared in front of Guernsey’s courts multiple times for different claims over the last decade, was this time claiming Social Security owed her £3,112.48 in benefits, which she had previously been told she did not qualify for.

But the claim ground to a halt immediately during a hearing on Friday, as questions were raised as to whether the petty debts court had any jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

The application had already been heard in front of a tribunal, rejected, and then appealed in front of the Royal Court, which also rejected it. These decisions, Judge Graeme McKerrell said, occluded any powers the petty debts court had. 

“The bottom line is that you submitted a claim for benefits, that was considered, and they came to a decision that you were not happy with. You then appealed that to a tribunal – that was rejected, so you onwardly appealed to the Royal Court, and they rejected your claim again,” he said.

“The appeal route precludes this court of any jurisdiction.” 

Edward T Wheadon House

Pictured: Edward T Wheadon House, where Ms Cotterill originally applied for benefits, but was told she was not eligible for them. 

The States of Guernsey advocate who appeared at the hearing presented a skeleton argument to the Judge which outlined why the application should be thrown out. She said their position was fundamentally simple: “allowing this to proceed would be entirely inappropriate”. 

“When all of the matters have been heard fully by the Royal Court and a tribunal, and a decision delivered, it would be a waste of court time for this to continue.”

While Ms Cotterill argued she was advised by the police to take her claim to this court, Judge McKerrelll concluded the petty debts court existed to fill in gaps left by other legal routes open to people claiming for damages, but he felt there was no gap to be plugged in this case.

“It is perfectly clear to me that the law logic Advocate Miller [the States’ Advocate] has pursued is sound. Whether Ms Cottterill is satisfied with how her feelings have been aired is not a matter for this court,” he said.

“The court does not need to fill a gap because there is no gap. There is a clear route set out and that is the only route that can be followed. And it has. Therefore, there can be no reason for this court to interfere – the only course of action I can take is to dismiss the case entirely.” 

Pictured top: Susan Cotterill was told her legal challenge had failed.