PC v Secretary of State for Defence (Veterans UK)

When determining causation under article 8 of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011, a tribunal must identify the potential causes of the claimed injury, exclude causes that are too remote or uncertain, classify the relevant causes as service or non-service causes, and apply the predominancy test only where the relevant causes are not all service causes.

A tribunal must make sufficient findings of fact and give adequate reasons. It must address the material evidence and explain why potentially relevant causes are accepted or rejected. Failure to do so is a material error of law requiring the decision to be set aside.

The appellant appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber) dated 29 October 2024. The First-tier Tribunal had dismissed his appeal concerning a claim under the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011 for a skin condition said to have resulted from military service in the Falkland Islands.

Permission to appeal was granted on the ground that the First-tier Tribunal may have applied the wrong causation approach under article 8, failed to consider potential causes beyond the Falkland Islands deployment, and failed adequately to address the evidence. The central issues were whether the First-tier Tribunal had made sufficient findings of fact and provided adequate reasons.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved an error of law because it made insufficient findings of fact and gave insufficient reasons. The decision was set aside and the case was remitted for redetermination by a freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal.
2. Article 8 of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011 requires a staged approach to causation. The tribunal should identify the potential process cause or causes, exclude causes that are too remote or uncertain, and classify each relevant cause as service-related or non-service-related. If the relevant causes are not all service causes, the tribunal must then consider whether service was the predominant cause.
3. The First-tier Tribunal had focused on whether the Falkland Islands deployment, its weather conditions, equipment and health and safety practices caused the skin condition. It did not sufficiently consider the appellant’s wider military service, possible pre-existing weakness, or other potential causes. It also failed to explain how it treated the evidence, including information supplied by the appellant.
4. The First-tier Tribunal’s obligation to make an informed decision may require it to exercise its inquisitorial function by directing the procurement of medical or expert evidence, particularly where the decision depends on evidence which the medical member cannot provide. The Upper Tribunal made no finding on the merits of the compensation claim. The case was remitted for an oral rehearing before a differently constituted panel.

• First-tier Tribunal (War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber): dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 29 October 2024.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and remitted the case for redetermination by a fresh tribunal.