Christopher Pearson v The Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] EWCA Civ 150
JH v Secretary of State for Defence
1 July 2024
[2024] UKUT 191 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A veteran appealed a PTSD compensation decision. The higher court upheld the lower court's ruling, saying it correctly determined the veteran's condition wasn't 'permanent' despite being serious, because further treatment might help. The higher court didn't find any legal mistakes in how the lower court made its decision.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning a claim for compensation for PTSD under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS).
- •Appellant (Mr. H), an ex-infantry private, diagnosed with PTSD in 2017.
- •Veterans UK initially awarded compensation at Level 12, later upheld after reconsideration.
- •First-tier Tribunal (FTT) increased the award to Level 10.
- •Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) seeking Level 6.
- •Central issue: whether Appellant's PTSD was 'permanent' under the 2011 Order, impacting compensation level.
- •Disagreement centered on interpretation of 'formal psychological treatment' and application of Article 5(7)(a) regarding permanence.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'permanent' in the context of mental disorders under the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011.
Article 5(7)(a) of the 2011 Order and Schedule 3, Table 3.
Standard for adequacy of reasons in tribunal decisions (intelligible, leaving no real and substantial doubt).
DS v SSWP (ESA) [2019] UKUT 347 (AAC)
Procedural fairness requires putting material points to the appellant for comment, if necessary (Butterfield and Creasy v Secretary of State for Defence [2002] EWHC 2247 (Admin)).
Butterfield and Creasy v Secretary of State for Defence [2002] EWHC 2247 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal found no material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision. The FTT's interpretation of 'permanent' and its assessment of the Appellant's treatment were deemed legally sound, even if the label 'formal psychological treatment' was immaterial to the overall conclusion.