Identification of the accidents
Identification of the accidents
Thirdly, having identified the effective causes of CTE in the appellant’s case, the Tribunal needed to decide whether these constituted “accidents”, applying the principles I have identified above when setting out the law. In this respect, I accept the appellant’s submission that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in this case by apparently proceeding on the assumption that all head-ball contact in the context of football is inevitably “process”. While a Tribunal may, in my judgment, safely proceed on the assumption that heading the ball in football is in general “process” because it is such a routine part of the game, it does not follow that all head-ball contact is “process”. It might happen that a player heads the ball in a perfectly ordinary way but suffers an untoward reaction (eg passing out) that is immediately obvious. Depending on the precise facts, that could properly be described as an “accident” applying the guidance set out above at [43]-[54]. Similarly, the example that Mr Royston for the appellant gives of a player’s head coming in the way of a close-range kick, could reasonably be described as an “accident”.
The question in any particular case of whether a player has suffered an “accident” or “accidents” needs to be determined by the Tribunal on the facts of the particular case, applying the principles I have set out above at [43]-[53]. In this respect, it must be remembered that although the claimant does not have to establish that any particular dated, documented accident has occurred, the claimant does have to establish on evidence on the balance of probabilities that an accident or accidents have occurred. It will therefore be a matter for the Tribunal to determine on the facts at the remitted hearing whether, in addition to the ten documented incidents that the Secretary of State accepts constituted “accidents”, the appellant has established that he suffered any other accident or accidents in the course of his playing career that, together with the documented accidents, made a material contribution to his loss of faculty or the extent of his disablement.
- 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)(i) and (3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforc
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Factual background
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The law
- Industrial injuries benefits for prescribed disease or injury
- Relevant case law relating to IIDB
- Causation
- Injury
- Accident
- The approach of the Upper Tribunal on appeal
- Ground 2 - Failure to address/give reasons for concluding that the other ‘undocumented’ incidents that the Tribunal concluded were an effective cause of the injury were in law “process” rather than pa
- The parties’ submissions
- My conclusions on ground 2
- Ground 1 - Perverse and/or inadequately reasoned conclusion that the 10 specific documented accidents were not an ‘effective cause’ of the injury
- My conclusions on Ground 1
- Identification of the injury
- Identification of the effective causes
- Identification of the accidents
- Extent of disablement
- Ground 3 - Perverse and/or inadequately reasoned reliance on family history of cognitive impairment
- My conclusions on Ground 3
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 365 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)