![[2024] UKUT 170 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground 3
Ground 3
Introduction
Ground 3 involves two discrete submissions. The first is the contention that the FTT misdirected itself in law in respect of the non-fault based nature of the AFCS. The second, in summary, is the argument that the FTT erred in law through misapplying JM v Secretary of State for Defence(AFCS) [2015] UKUT 332 (AAC); [2016] AACR 3 in the light of the circumstances obtaining in this case.
Judge Hemingway had this to say in respect of Ground 3 when granting permission to appeal (emphasis as in the original):
Having reminded myself of the relatively low threshold applicable when considering a permission application, I do give permission on this ground. It may be the case that the F-tT, whilst correctly identifying the relevance of what had been said in JM, did not then apply it correctly.
I do not read Judge Hemingway’s grant of permission to appeal as limiting Ground 3 to the JM point and so proceed accordingly.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal issued on 4 January 2021, following the hearing on 21 December 2020 under file number A
- Introduction
- A very brief outline of the factual background to the appeal
- The Appellant’s AFCS claim
- The Secretary of State’s decision on the Appellant’s AFCS claim
- The Appellant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
- The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal appeal
- The AFCS legislative framework
- The role of appellate review in appeals from a specialist first instance jurisdiction
- Ground 1
- The First-tier Tribunal’s approach to making findings on the basis of its own knowledge
- The Appellant’s other main written submissions in the context of Ground 1
- The Appellant’s other main oral submissions in the context of Ground 1
- Ground 3
- The non-fault based nature of the AFCS
- The causation test and JM v Secretary of State for Defence
- Key points from the three-judge panel’s decision in JM v Secretary of State for Defence
- The First-tier Tribunal’s approach to the decision in JM v SSD
- The Appellant’s challenge to the FTT’s approach to the decision in JM v SSD
- Pulling the threads together
- Conclusions