JH v Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] UKUT 191 (AAC)
Christopher Pearson v The Secretary of State for Defence
23 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 150
Court of Appeal
A former Navy doctor with a mental health condition received a lower compensation payment than he believed he was entitled to. The courts initially focused too much on whether his current part-time work was consistent, ignoring the fact that his ability to work had severely decreased over time. The higher court sent the case back to be re-evaluated, correctly focusing on the doctor's overall decline in work ability since his condition began.
Key Facts
- •Christopher Pearson, a former Royal Navy Surgeon Commander, suffered work-related stress and a permanent mental disorder.
- •He was awarded compensation for moderate functional limitation under the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011.
- •Pearson appealed, arguing for a higher award based on severe functional limitation.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected his appeal.
- •The core issue is the interpretation of the Order's descriptors for mental disorders.
Legal Principles
The compensation scheme aims to find the descriptor that most accurately reflects the claimant's injury (Secretary of State for Defence v Duncan and McWilliams [2009] EWCA Civ 1043).
Secretary of State for Defence v Duncan and McWilliams [2009] EWCA Civ 1043
Functional limitation is assessed by comparing the claimant's limitations to a healthy person of the same age and sex (Article 5(6) of the Order).
Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011, SI 2011/517
Where an injury fits multiple descriptors, the most appropriate one should be chosen (Article 16(1)(b) of the Order).
Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011, SI 2011/517
The tribunal must assess the claimant's ability to work at the time of the respondent's decision (Section 5B(b) of the Pensions Appeals Tribunals Act 1943).
Pensions Appeals Tribunals Act 1943
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
The UT erred by focusing solely on whether Pearson's work was 'regular' and failing to consider the trajectory of his diminishing work capacity from the onset of his illness.
The UT's decision was set aside.
The UT and FtT wrongly considered only the period since Pearson's discharge from the Royal Navy, overlooking the 'and over time' clause in the descriptor for severe functional limitation. They also misinterpreted the descriptors, improperly emphasizing 'regularity' over the decline in work capacity.
The case was remitted to the FtT for a fresh decision.
The FtT should reconsider the entire period from the onset of Pearson's illness, considering both the decline in his work capacity and the regularity of his current work to determine the most appropriate descriptor.