MA vs The Secretary of State for Defence

This case involved an appeal by MA against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal regarding the time limits for claiming compensation under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

TLDR:

• MA appealed against the First-tier Tribunal's decision on time limits for claiming compensation.
• The appeal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal.
• The case centered on whether MA's claim was made within the prescribed time limits.
• The Upper Tribunal found the appeal to be academic as the Secretary of State had already awarded compensation.

The appellant, MA, filed a claim for compensation under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) for neck and back pain, which he alleged was caused by his service. The Secretary of State for Defence initially rejected the claim, stating it was made out of time.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) upheld the Secretary of State's decision, finding that MA's claim was made more than seven years after the injury was caused, thus exceeding the time limits specified in Article 47 of the AFCS Order 2011.

MA appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing that the FTT had erred in law by not considering Article 47(1)(d), which applies when a claim is made within seven years of first seeking medical advice for an illness. MA contended that his condition should be classified as an illness, thereby extending the time limit for his claim.

The Upper Tribunal, presided over by Judge Wright, dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appeal had become academic as the Secretary of State had already reviewed the case and awarded compensation to MA after the FTT's decision.

Despite the appeal being academic, the Tribunal acknowledged the importance of the legal issue regarding the interpretation of Article 47(1) of the AFCS Order. However, it declined to provide a definitive ruling on this matter, suggesting that it would be better addressed in a case where the resolution would have a material impact.

The Tribunal's decision highlights the complexities involved in the interpretation of time limits under the AFCS Order and underscores the need for clear legal guidance in future cases.

Legal representatives: Glyn Tucker of the Royal British Legion for the appellant, Scarlett Milligan and Chiara Cordone, both of counsel, instructed by Kara Young of GLD for the respondent.

Judicial Panel: Upper Tribunal Judge Wright

Case Citation Reference: [2024] UKUT 124 (AAC)