DN v The Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] UKUT 238 (AAC)
MA v The Secretary of State for Defence
18 April 2024
[2024] UKUT 124 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A soldier claimed compensation for injuries, but the initial ruling said his claim was too late. The government then gave him the money anyway. The appeal court said there was no need to hear the case because the soldier already got what he wanted.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision dismissing appellant's claim for neck and back pain compensation under the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme Order 2011 (AFCS Order).
- •FTT dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the claim was made out of time under article 47 of the AFCS Order.
- •Appellant argued that the FTT erred in applying article 47(1)(a) instead of article 47(1)(d).
- •After the FTT decision, the Secretary of State awarded compensation to the appellant.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered whether the appeal was academic due to the subsequent compensation award.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of Article 47 of the AFCS Order regarding time limits for claiming injury benefits.
Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme Order 2011
Whether Article 47(1)(a) and (d) are mutually exclusive.
Discussion and analysis of case law and the AFCS Order
Test for determining whether an academic appeal should be dismissed.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Salem [1991] AC 491 (HL), VS and RS v Hampshire CC [2021] UKUT 187 (AAC), DD v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Secretary of State for Justice, MIND intervening [2022] UKUT 166 (AAC)
Review of decisions under Article 59 of the AFCS Order.
Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme Order 2011
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The appeal was deemed academic because the appellant had already received compensation. The UT declined to rule on the legal interpretation of Article 47(1) in an academic case.