header-logo header-logo

Armed forces—Compensation scheme—Definition of injuries

23 October 2009
Issue: 7390 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Duncan and another v Secretary of State for Defence, [2009] EWCA Civ 1043, [2009] All ER (D) 121 (Oct)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Keene, Carnwath and Elias LJJ,
12 October 2009

The appropriate date for assessing injuries and their likely trajectory for the purposes of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2005, (SI 2005/439) (the scheme), is the date of the decision, not the date of the initiating injury. Further, injuries resulting from proper and appropriate medical treatment designed to cure the patient or alleviate pain do not exacerbate or constitute the creation of an additional injury.

Derek Sweeting QC, Jeffrey Jupp & Hugh Lyons, solicitor advocate (instructed by Lovells LLP) for the claimants. Nathalie Lieven QC & Andrew Henshaw (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Two appeals before the court concerned the proper construction of the scheme, which had been set up pursuant to the Armed Forces (Pension and Compensation) Act 2004.

Schedule 4 to the Order set out a series of tables identifying categories of injuries,

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll