[2024] UKUT 170 (AAC)

There are two principal statutory schemes providing financial compensation for armed forces personnel who suffer injury or death caused by service. The war pensions scheme applies to disablement or death which is due to service before 6 April 2005. The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) covers injury or death due to service on or after 6 April 2005. This appeal concerns the latter scheme.

The Appellant, the late Colonel C, brought a claim for compensation under the AFCS (he was still in service, thus precluding a claim under the war pensions scheme). His argument, in essence, was that the condition of malignant melanoma on the left shoulder and right calf, which resulted in a fatal cancer, was predominantly caused by service after 6 April 2005. The Secretary of State for Defence, acting through the agency of Veterans UK, refused that AFCS claim. The First-tier Tribunal (the FTT) in the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber (WPAFCC) dismissed the Appellant’s subsequent appeal. For the reasons that follow I dismiss the further appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

I held a remote oral hearing of this Upper Tribunal appeal on 25 April 2024. The Appellant was represented by Mr M Rawlinson KC and Ms J Skander of Counsel, instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP, whilethe Respondent was represented by Mr W Hays of Counsel, instructed by the Government Legal Department. I am indebted to all three counsel for their various written and oral submissions in the course of these proceedings.

Rather late in the day, it has become apparent that the Upper Tribunal office had first registered this appeal under the incorrect file reference UA-2021-000742-WP. This was on the mistaken assumption that the case was brought under the war pensions scheme (hence the ‘WP’ suffix). The file reference has now been corrected with the change of the appropriate suffix to UA-2021-000742-AFCS. Nothing of any substance turns on this administrative misclassification.

For convenience the following abbreviations are used in this decision: