Secretary of State for Defence v CAW
[2023] UKUT 246 (AAC)
GAM v The Secretary of State for Defence
3 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 10 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A veteran received a war pension supplement and Universal Credit. The government reduced the supplement because the Universal Credit payment covered similar disability-related expenses. The court agreed this was allowed under the law (Article 52), preventing the veteran from receiving double payments for the same disability.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (GAM) appealed the First-tier Tribunal's (Tribunal) decision to abate his unemployability supplement (UnSupp) due to his receipt of Universal Credit (UC).
- •The abatement reduced his UnSupp from £119.90 to £56.37 per week.
- •The Tribunal upheld the Secretary of State's decision, relying on Articles 41, 12, and 52 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006 (SPO).
- •The Tribunal found the LCWRA component of UC analogous to benefits under the Social Security Act 1975, justifying the abatement under Article 52.
- •The claimant argued the Tribunal erred by using Article 52 instead of Article 56 of the SPO.
- •The Secretary of State argued Article 52 correctly applied to prevent double compensation.
Legal Principles
Article 41 of the SPO places the burden of proof on the claimant to raise a reasonable doubt in their favour.
SPO 2006
Article 12(10) of the SPO allows the Secretary of State to consider certain state pension benefits and analogous non-UK benefits when adjusting UnSupp.
SPO 2006
Article 52 of the SPO allows the Secretary of State discretion to adjust awards to prevent double compensation for the same disablement.
SPO 2006
Article 56 of the SPO addresses abatement of pensions for past periods where social security benefits were also paid.
SPO 2006
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal correctly relied on Article 52 of the SPO. The LCWRA component of UC constituted "compensation" under Article 52(3) as a periodical payment for disablement under an enactment, justifying abatement to prevent double compensation. Article 56 was inapplicable as it related to past periods, not future payments.