[2024] UKUT 395 (AAC)

There is some dispute in relation to the process cause of the claimant’s left knee injury as well as whether that injury was predominantly caused by service. However, because of what I have decided in relation to Article 11, I do not need to decide these matters in this appeal.

What the claimant was told by Service physiotherapists and by Dr Iddles at appointments regarding his left knee injury in the days leading up to the Fixture is disputed. For the purposes of this appeal, I have taken the claimant’s evidence at face value, and proceeded on the basis that he was “given the green light” by Dr Iddles to play rugby (as the three-member panel of the First-tier Tribunal which heard his appeal on 9 January 2023 (the “Tribunal”) found to be the case).

There is also a factual dispute as to whether the Defence Council has “approved” the sport of rugby generally for the purposes of Article 11(6)(a) of the AFCS Order and whether Dr Iddles or the Service physiotherapists who treated the claimant had authority to “recognise” the Fixture, or the organisation and training for it, on behalf of the Royal Navy, and whether they in fact did so.

I discuss these matters below in the context of my analysis of Article 11 and its proper application.