The agreed factual and procedural background
The agreed factual and procedural background
The Respondent (to whom I shall refer in this judgment as “the claimant”) served with the Royal Navy from 16 September 2011 until 8 February 2018, when he was medically discharged.
This appeal is brought by the Secretary of State with the permission of the First-tier Tribunal.
The claimant injured his right knee playing rugby for the Royal Navy. He underwent reconstructive surgery in July 2012 and on 12 August 2013 was graded “P2” (see page 243 of the appeal bundle). This signified that the claimant was fit for a return to full duties, but it did not amount to a clinical assessment that he was either injury-free or symptom-free.
On or around 24 July 2014 the claimant sought medical advice from Dr Iddles, a medical officer at HMS Nelson, regarding pain in his right knee. He was referred to physical rehabilitation (see page 125 of the appeal bundle).
On 27 July 2014 the claimant played in a civilian charity rugby match (the “Fixture”).
The Fixture was not organised by the Royal Navy (see §30 of the claimant’s witness statement at page 53 of the UT bundle), although the claimant was not forbidden to play in it.
In the course of the Fixture, the claimant injured his left knee. He had reconstructive surgery on his left knee in February 2015.
On or around 23 May 2015 the claimant twisted his left knee going down the stairs at his service accommodation at HMS Drake.
On or around 8 December 2017 the claimant made a claim under the AFCS for compensation in respect of his left knee injury.
On 30 January 2018 the Secretary of State disallowed the claimant’s claim for compensation in respect of his left knee injury. In the disallowance decision, which was addressed to the claimant, it was explained that the Secretary of State:
“does not accept that your left knee injury is wholly or predominantly caused by service. The evidence shows that you sustained an injury to your left knee whilst playing charity/civilian rugby in 2014. You were not carrying out a service obligation at the time of your injury and you had not presented with your left knee prior to this incident.”
The claimant applied for reconsideration of the disallowance decision. When this was unsuccessful, he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber) on the basis that his previous service-related injury to his right knee was a partial cause of the injury to his left knee, and therefore his left knee injury was partly caused by service.
- 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
![[2024] UKUT 395 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)