![[2024] UKUT 395 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Disposal
Disposal
While the making of findings about the process of the injury to the claimant’s left knee and whether it was predominantly caused by service are matters that would tend to engage the expertise of the specialist members on the panel and would make a remittal appropriate, because I have decided that Article 11, properly applied, is “the end of the case” as far as eligibility for compensation under the AFCS is concerned, there is no need for such findings, and it is therefore appropriate for me to exercise my discretion in favour of remaking the FtT Decision myself.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved an error of law. Under section 12(2)(a), b(ii) and (4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcem
- Introduction
- The agreed factual and procedural background
- Factual issues in dispute
- Legal framework
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The grounds of appeal and the parties’ submissions
- Analysis
- Was the Tribunal mistaken in its analysis of Article 11?
- How should the Tribunal have approached Article 11 and what did it need to say about it?
- Has civilian/charity rugby been “approved” by the Defence Council?
- Was the Fixture, and the organisation and training for it, “recognised” by the relevant Service?
- Article 11(6)(b)
- Disposal
- Conclusions