header-logo header-logo

08 November 2007 / Andrew Tucker , Andrew Buckham
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Forgotten defenders

Are we failing our armed forces? ask Andrew Buckham and Andrew Tucker

The scale of compensation payable to injured service personnel under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) is under scrutiny after details of the case of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson were highlighted by the media. Ben, aged 24, a soldier serving on an operational tour in Afghanistan, sustained multiple injuries as a result of a mine strike. Ben submitted an application under AFCS, a scheme described by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on its introduction in 2005 as a scheme that “gives modern, fair and simpler arrangements, which focuses help better on the more severely disabled”.

However, the award of £152,150 afforded to Ben under AFCS highlighted that there are significant problems in the way in which the scheme assesses compensation for service personnel who have suffered multiple injuries, and that the scheme needed to be urgently reviewed. Ben’s case has also brought into sharp focus the commitment and sacrifice members of the British armed forces make, what they may expect to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll