MJU -v- Secretary of State for Defence (AFCS): [2025] UKUT 033 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Stout on 29 January 2025
Read the full decision in .
Judicial Summary
The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant바카라 사이트檚 case that he had been 바카라 사이트渙rdered바카라 사이트� to have the dental treatment that had been one of the causes of his myofascial/atypical facial pain. A conclusion that the appellant had not been given an enforceable order to have the treatment would in any event not be sufficient to determine whether the appellant바카라 사이트檚 consenting to the treatment was 바카라 사이트榗aused by service바카라 사이트� or not for the purposes of Article 8 of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011 (SI 2011/517) (바카라 사이트渢he AFCS Order바카라 사이트�). The assessment of whether or not something is 바카라 사이트榗aused by service바카라 사이트� is more nuanced than simply whether the thing that causes the injury is a result of someone following an enforceable order or not. In this case, it required, first, adequate findings of fact to be made about what happened between the appellant and his officer in advance of that appointment. Secondly, taking full account of the guidance in JM v Secretary of State for Defence (AFCS) [2015] UKUT 332 (AAC), [2016] AACR 3, the Tribunal needed to consider whether or not the appellant바카라 사이트檚 consenting to undergo the treatment in the light of whatever happened between him and his officer was 바카라 사이트渃aused by service바카라 사이트�.
The Tribunal also erred in law in perversely concluding that there was 바카라 사이트渘o evidence바카라 사이트� that the stress that had contributed to the appellant바카라 사이트檚 pain was work-related. There was ample evidence in principle as to that causal link. The Tribunal needed to consider that evidence and provide adequate reasons for the conclusions it reached on the issue in the light of the evidence. The Tribunal would need when making that assessment at the remitted hearing to apply the guidance in JM that the AFCS Order provides for a no-fault scheme and there is no 바카라 사이트渢hin skull바카라 사이트� exclusionary rule, so that stress may be 바카라 사이트渃aused by service바카라 사이트� even if there has been no breach of duty by the forces or the injury is not one that would be suffered by someone of ordinary fortitude.