![[2025] UKUT 289 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Law
The Law
So far as material, the Armed Forces Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) provides that
“370 Civilians subject to service discipline
(1) In this Act “civilian subject to service discipline” means a person who—
(a) is not subject to service law; and
(b) is within any paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 15.
...
Schedule 15
Civilians subject to service discipline
Part 1
Civilians subject to service discipline
...
Persons in service custody etc
3(1) A person is within this paragraph if—
(a) he is in service custody; and
(b) his being in service custody is lawful by virtue of any provision of or made under this Act.
(2) A person is also within this paragraph if he is in the course of being arrested, or of having an attempted arrest made of him, by a person who has a duty under service law to apprehend him”.
Again so far as material, the AFCS provides that
“Article 2
Interpretation
2. In this Order—
“forces” means the armed forces and the reserve forces;
“service” means service as a member of the forces:
...
Article 8
Injury caused by service
8(1) Subject to articles 11 and 12, benefit is payable to or in respect of a member or former member by reason of an injury which is caused (wholly or partly) by service where the cause of the injury occurred on or after 6 April 2005.
(2) Where injury is partly caused by service, benefit is only payable if service is the predominant cause of the injury”.
The Service Custody and Service of Relevant Sentences Rules 2009 (“the 2009 Rules”) provide, again so far as material:
“Breaches of discipline
43. A detainee commits a breach of discipline under these Rules if he—
...
(n) without reasonable excuse fails to perform a task or negligently performs any such task ...
...
Company commander’s punishments
49(1) If he finds a charge under rule 43 proved, a company commander with delegated powers may, subject to paragraph (2), impose one or both of the following punishments—
(a) admonition;
(b) extra military instruction not exceeding three periods of forty-five minutes each.
(2) If the person charged is a civilian subject to service discipline, he may not impose extra military instruction as a punishment.
(3) If more than one charge is found at the same hearing to have been proved, punishments under this rule may be ordered to run consecutively.
Commandant’s punishments
50(1) If he finds a charge under rule 45 proved, the commandant may, subject to paragraphs (2) to (4), impose one or more of the following punishments—
(a) admonition;
(b) cellular confinement for a period not exceeding ten days;
(c) extra military instruction.
(2) The commandant may not impose cellular confinement along with any other punishment.
(3) If the person charged is a civilian subject to service discipline, he may not impose extra military instruction as a punishment.
(4) If more than one charge is found at the same hearing to have been proved, punishments under this rule may be ordered to run consecutively, but the total period of cellular confinement shall not exceed ten days”.
- Heading
- Section 1
- Background
- The Law
- The Decision of the Tribunal
- The Appeal
- Causation at common law
- Monarch Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Q Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949] AC 1, where defective boilers caused a vessel to arrive late at the Suez Canal, by which time the Second World War had broken out a
- Quinn v. Burch Bros. (Builders) Ltd. [1966] 2 QB 370. In that case the claimant had a contract with the defendant to carry out plastering work. The claimant asked the defendant for a step ladder, whic
- Salmon LJ said, at pp. 394-395
- Alexander v. Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd. (1987) 9 NSWLR 310. In that case auditors had failed to notice certain aspects of the trading of a company which, had they noticed them, would have led t
- Causation in the present context
- discount potential process causes which are too remote or uncertain to be regarded as a relevant process cause
- Horsfall v Minister of Pensions (1944) 1 WPAR 7 to the effect that the concept of causation embraced “only acts or conditions or events performed or undergone owing to and in compliance with the gener
- Wedderspoon v Minister of Pensions [1947] KB 562. In that case a military doctor had prescribed himself an excessive dose of chloral hydrate which caused him to die. The High Court (Denning J) conclud
- Monaghan v Minister of Pensions (1947) 1 WPAR 971, where it was held that injury or death is not attributable to service if it does not more than provide the opportunity for the act which caused injur
- NJ . In that case the claimant was deployed as an Army ski coach. While on duty as head coach at a championship a civilian skier collided with her. The Upper Tribunal held that the injury was caused b
- the moving of the chairs at MCTC the fact that the Respondent was in MCTC because he had been sentenced to detention there
- the fact that the Respondent had committed an offence in service did not mean that service caused the offence. The decision to commit an offence was a personal choice, and it just so happened that he
- following a direction in compliance with the rules of the detention establishment
- The Respondent’s Submissions
- Analysis
- the panel did not accept that the principles of liability in other areas of law (such as negligence and employment law) were of assistance in determining whether the test set by the AFCS was satisfied
- is not subject to service law”
- even if he is following a direction in compliance with the rules of the detention establishment
- Conclusions