Flight Sergeant (ret'd) Barbara Eyton-Hughes & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Defence

31 July 2024

[2024] EWHC 1932 (Admin)

High Court

Two ex-RAF members won their service complaints but got only a small payout. They sued, saying they deserved more for lost career opportunities due to the mishandling of their original complaints. The court decided the amount awarded was fair, even though the process had some minor flaws that didn't change the result.

Key Facts

•Two retired RAF personnel (Claimants) brought service complaints alleging mishandling of previous complaints against them.
•Their service complaints were largely upheld, but they received only £3,500 in redress.
•Claimants argued this was insufficient compensation for career losses due to their early resignation from the RAF.
•The case concerned the interpretation of 'redress' under s.340C(2)(b) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
•The Claimants appealed the redress amount, and the Appeal Body upheld the complaints but did not award compensation for career loss because it was deemed that their resignations were not reasonable.

Legal Principles

Scope of 'redress' in service complaints under the Armed Forces Act 2006

Armed Forces Act 2006, s.340C(2)(b)

Procedural fairness in service complaints, including the requirement for oral hearings

Common law principles of natural justice; Osborn v Parole Board [2013] 3 WLR 1020; R(Ogunmuyiwa) v Army Board [2022] ACD 96

Judicial review principles, including the 'no substantial difference' test under s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981

Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(2A); R(Goring PC) v SODC [2018] 1 WLR 5161; R(Plan B Earth) v SS Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214

Interpretation of statutory provisions and government policies

Mandalia v SSHD [2015] 1 WLR 4546; R(A) v SSHD [2021] 1 WLR 3931

Causation, remoteness, and mitigation of loss in tort law

Corr v IBC [2008] ICR 372; Morris v Richards [2004] PIQR Q3

Constructive dismissal in employment law

Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221; Eastwood v Magnox [2004] ICR 1064

Outcomes

Claims dismissed

The Appeal Body's decision was found to be rational and procedurally fair. The 'reasonableness' test applied by the AB was not unlawful, and any procedural unfairness did not likely alter the outcome.

Flight Sergeant (ret'd) Barbara Eyton-Hughes & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Defence

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

L, R (on the application of) v The Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces

Mark Moss, R (on the application of) v The Service Complaints Ombudsman of the Armed Forces (No.3)

Ministry of Defence v Anne Rubery

MA v The Secretary of State for Defence

Mark Moss, R (on the application of) v The Service Complaints Ombudsman of the Armed Forces (No 3) (Remedy)