![[2025] UKUT 289 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Respondent’s Submissions
The Respondent’s Submissions
For his part the Respondent submitted that the effect of s.370 and Schedule 15 Part 1 paragraph 3 of the 2005 Act was that a civilian subject to service discipline held in MCTC was expressly subject to service law while in custody.
Rules 43, 49 and 50 of the 2009 Rules presuppose that civilians subject to service discipline in MCTC are governed by service law.
The Tribunal found in [8] that
'That meant that whilst at MCTC he was subject to the full Armed Forces discipline standards and sanctions. He had to obey orders and any infringement would be punished.'
He sustained an injury to his left hand while undertaking a compulsory task at MCTC.
This was not a civilian activity, but a duty imposed under service law; refusal could have led to punishment under the 2009 Rules.
The injury persisted for at least a year, with treatment records from both MCTC and the NHS (which the Secretary of State UK holds). It later developed into nerve complications diagnosed as carpal tunnel syndrome.
The injury fits within Level 13 of the AFCS tariff. The most appropriate descriptors are:
descriptor 20: “Muscle or tendon unit injury short of full thickness rupture, which has caused, or is expected to cause, significant functional limitation or restriction beyond 26 weeks”.
descriptor 23: “Ligament injury short of full thickness rupture, to one wrist, which has caused, or is expected to cause, significant functional limitation or restriction at 26 weeks with substantial recovery beyond that date”.
- 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