Walker, R (on the application of) v Inner London Crown Court

For an injury pension, the question is whether the injury was caused wholly or substantially by the performance of duty, rather than merely by the claimant’s status as an office-holder. Participation in an inquiry, grievance procedure or disciplinary process does not automatically prevent an injury from being received in the execution of duty. The court must examine whether an event, condition or circumstance impacted directly on the claimant’s physical or mental condition while the claimant was carrying out the relevant duties. The issue is therefore fact-sensitive. It is not necessarily resolved by characterising the events as either an inquiry or the performance of duty.

The claimant, a former fire-fighter, sought judicial review of the decision of the Inner London Crown Court dismissing his appeal against the refusal of an injury pension. The Crown Court had decided the legal issue on the factual account most favourable to the claimant and concluded that his depressive illness resulted from participation in a grievance inquiry, rather than from activity in the execution of his duty. The central issue before the Administrative Court was whether the Crown Court had wrongly treated those alternatives as mutually exclusive.

1. The decision of the Inner London Crown Court was quashed and the appeal was remitted for a further hearing before a differently constituted court.
2. The governing question was whether the claimant’s injury was caused wholly or substantially by the performance of his duty, rather than as a consequence merely of his status as a fire-fighter. The relevant inquiry was whether an event, condition or circumstance impacted directly on his mental condition while he was carrying out his duties and caused or substantially contributed to his disablement.
3. The Crown Court had adopted too narrow an approach by treating the events as either an inquiry conducted by the senior officer or activity performed by the claimant in the execution of his duty. The proper question was whether, regardless of the characterisation of the process, the claimant was carrying out his duties when the relevant circumstances affected him.
4. The reasoning in Merseyside Police Authority v Gidlow [2004] EWHC 2807 (Admin) was compelling insofar as participation in a grievance or disciplinary procedure did not, of itself, exclude an injury from qualifying. The court also distinguished R (Stunt) v Mallett [2001] EWCA Civ 265, because that case concerned illness caused by an investigation into the claimant’s past performance of duty, whereas the present case concerned events occurring while the claimant was acting within the managerial chain of command.
5. On the assumed facts, it was at least properly arguable that the claimant remained engaged in his managerial duty while supplying information to, and receiving advice from, the senior officer. The legal issue should therefore not have been decided against him as a matter of law on the preliminary basis adopted by the Crown Court.
6. The claimant was awarded his costs in the Administrative Court and below, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

• Inner London Crown Court: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of an injury pension after deciding the legal issue on the factual basis most favourable to him.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the Crown Court’s decision and remitted the appeal for a further hearing before a differently constituted court.