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.