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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll