MA v The Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] UKUT 124 (AAC)
GE v The Secretary of State for Defence
28 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 92 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A reservist soldier claimed money he believed he was owed. The law clearly states this money is only payable after leaving the army. The judge agreed with the initial decision that he was not yet entitled to the money, as he had not yet finished his service.
Key Facts
- •Appellant, a reservist in the Army Reserve, claimed Guaranteed Income Payment (GIP) under the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme Order 2011 (AFCS Order) from July 2015, citing reduced earning capacity due to ill-health.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the appeal, holding that GIP is payable only after service ends.
- •The appellant's service ended on 12 July 2019, and GIP was paid from 13 July 2019.
- •The appellant argued that the FTT's interpretation of Article 64 of the AFCS Order was incorrect and that the delay in payment was unfair compared to regular service members.
Legal Principles
A Guaranteed Income Payment (GIP) under the AFCS Order is only payable after a service member's service ends.
Article 16(10) of the AFCS Order
Article 64 of the AFCS Order must be interpreted consistently with other provisions of the AFCS Order, particularly Article 16(10).
Upper Tribunal's interpretation of the AFCS Order
Explanatory Notes to a statutory instrument are a secondary aid to interpretation and do not override the clear and unambiguous wording of the statutory provisions themselves.
R(O) v SSHD [2022] UKSC 3; [2023] AC 255
The Armed Forces and Pensions Act 2004 allows for schemes providing benefits payable on termination of service or retirement.
Section 1(1) of the Armed Forces and Pensions Act 2004
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal found the FTT's interpretation of the relevant articles of the AFCS Order to be correct and legally sound. The wording of Article 16(10) unambiguously states that GIP is payable only after service ends. The appellant's arguments based on fairness and the intention of the GIP as income replacement were not sufficient to override the clear statutory language.
Similar Cases
JH v Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] UKUT 191 (AAC)
DN v The Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] UKUT 238 (AAC)
Flight Sergeant (ret'd) Barbara Eyton-Hughes & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] EWHC 1932 (Admin)
Christopher Pearson v The Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] EWCA Civ 150