MH v The Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] UKUT 241 (AAC)
GAM v Secretary of State for Defence (No 3)
19 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 78 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A veteran won a case to get a review of his old war pension. He then tried to make the review happen in a specific way, but a higher court said the first court didn't have the power to do that. The higher court only deals with the decision to have the review, not how it should be done.
Key Facts
- •G.A.M. appealed a Pensions Appeal Tribunal (Scotland) decision that directed the Secretary of State for Defence to conduct an 'anytime review' of a 2008 war pensions decision.
- •The 2008 decision assessed G.A.M.'s lower back pain and rectal polyp at 1-5%.
- •G.A.M. argued the 2008 review should consider conditions subsequently accepted as attributable to service, which weren't included in the initial claim.
- •The Secretary of State argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order a specific review methodology.
Legal Principles
A right of appeal arises only through legislation.
Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943
A refusal to conduct a review under Article 44(1) of the SPO is appealable as it's effectively a decision to maintain a previous decision under Article 44(6).
Secretary of State for Defence v RC (WP) [2012] UUT 229 (AAC); [2013] AACR 4
The Pensions Appeal Tribunal's role is limited to appeals against specific Veterans UK decisions; it doesn't have an ongoing supervisory role over the Secretary of State's functions.
This case and GJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2022] UKUT 334
A successful party generally cannot appeal to challenge specific findings or aspects of reasoning; exceptions exist for jurisdictional issues.
Lake v Lake [1955] P 336; Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Morina [2007] 1 WLR 3033
The Medical Advisor's duty is to consider all potentially claimable conditions based on available medical evidence.
AL v Secretary of State for Defence (WP) [2016] UKUT 141 (AAC)
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed G.A.M.'s appeal.
The Pensions Appeal Tribunal (PAT) did not err in law. The PAT correctly focused on the Secretary of State's refusal to conduct an anytime review, rather than dictating the review's methodology. The PAT's decision to direct a review was within its jurisdiction; however, prescribing the review's scope was not.