![[2024] UKUT 170 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Appellant’s AFCS claim
The Appellant’s AFCS claim
On 14 February 2019 the Appellant made a claim under the AFCS in respect of melanoma on his left shoulder and right calf, giving the date of onset as June 2018. In the box on the claim form marked ‘Extra Information’ he made the following points:
Throughout my service I have regularly served in environments exposed to intense sunlight for prolonged periods… Repeated lengthy exposure to intense sunlight and hot environments throughout my career, including five tours of Afghanistan, have been major causative factors in the disease. I have always taken precautions against sunburn, as advised, but it is the long periods spent in these environments with all of the variables of exposure to sunshine and other factors that have led to this disease. I do not take beach holidays and do not sunbathe, and use sunscreen during summer months – therefore the greatest exposure I have had to UV light and causative factors for malignant melanoma has been whilst I have been on duty.
- 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